Evaluate examples of pro OR anti natal policy.
In this week's lesson we will give each other step by step help on writing this essay. As its your first I will give you lots and lots of help so there is no need to worry.
Firstly please look at the resources on ISLE.
So we will start by looking at the command term Examine. Yo should start you essay off with a clear intro. You will also need the mark scheme.
"This essay will Consider the concept of China's anti natal policy in a way that uncovers assumptions and interrelationships"
Here is a video for you just in case you need a reminder on China.
And something thats really up to date.
Task. In the comment box please add what you would consider the assumptions about the policy.
 |
| Click here for Vocaroo help. |
 |
| Click here for diigo links. |
I would like to show you how I found the articles using a more focused search rather than "China one child policy"
AND
The One Child Policy was created by Deng Xiao Ping (邓小平).During his tenure, he spearheaded China’s economic reform into a market economy (economy based on the principles of supply and demand). Since the implication of the One Child Policy in 1979, a total of 250 million births have been avoided. In the present, China’s population is currently stands at 1.3 billion people. Assuming that Malthus was correct, they quickly went ahead to implement this policy. In the short term, the policy seemed like a good idea in 1979. However, in retrospect, we can obviously see that the policy had a lot of flaws. From the present day, we can obviously see that if China had simply left their population growth alone, they could have had at least 20 more years of economic dividend. China has passes its optimum time for growth. India on the other hand, did not make this mistake. Now, projections say that by 2025 , the population of India will be larger than that of China's. From the present day it is easy to conclude that China was wrong. However, one thing that deeply affected the choices back then was the technology that was available at the time. The use of contraception was quite new at the time, so people weren’t as willing to use it. Nowadays, contraception is more advanced and easier to use for example, birth control pills.
ReplyDeleteOn 31th October 2011, the world population reached the 7 billion mark. Over population is becoming an ever increasing issue globally. Some countries with large area and abundant resources are still are able to still dismiss this issue while some have tackled the issue since the 1960`s. One of the countries that proactively enforced population control is Singapore. Singapore originally tried to decrease its population, now doing the exact opposite. This essay will evaluate Singapore`s population control scheme.
ReplyDeleteAfter the Second World War the Singaporean population was booming due to the rise of the rapid increase of birth rates (baby boom). The situation was becoming so severe that in 1965, on average a baby was born in Singapore every 11 minutes and made a Guinness world record that was unbeaten for ten years. The hospitals did not have enough beds forcing many births to take place on the floor and on transport bed used for emergencies. From 1947 to the early 1970s, the Singaporean government was concerned, given the small land area and small economy at the time, the growing population would mean more mouths to compete for scarce resources. Thus overpopulation will lead to a lower quality of life across the board for all Singaporeans. To slow the process down and to keep an appropriate population the Singaporean government introduced a series of anit-natalist policies.
These policies flourished during 1960`s to the 1980`s which some say was over successfully. Realizing the potential impact on a country with small resources the minister for Health, Yong Nyuk Lin, tabled a White Paper in Parliament in September 1965 and outlined a Five-year Mass Family Planning Programme aimed at reducing the birth rate from 29.9 per thousand in 1965 to 20 per thousand in 1970. With it the Family Planning and Population Board (FPPB) was established in 1966, initially advocating small families but eventually running the “Stop at Two (children)” programs, which pushed for small two-children families and promoted sterilisation.
-Tomo & Nitin
The Singaporean government also introduced the “Graduate Mothers' Scheme” (GMS) in 1984; it favored the children of mothers with a university degree in primary school placement and registration process over the lesser-educated. After the outcry in the 1984 general elections it was eventually scrapped. It was due to the fact that these schemes were being used by government leaders to target lowly-educated and low-income women in an experiment with eugenics policies to solve social concerns, resulting in the opposite of creating social concerns. More importantly the population was rapidly decreasing. In 1977, Singapore’s fertility fell to 1.82 TFR which meant it has gone below the recovery level. In addition due to this scheme there is a large tilt in the demographic percentage of the people over 65 and was estimated that if the problem was left untreated it is estimated by 2030, one in five people would be over 65. This would perpetuate population shrinkage because no matter how high the fertility rate may become, the population of the child bearing age would be too low to increase the population.
ReplyDeleteDifferent sources have offered differing judgments on the government policies` impact on the demographic structure of Singapore. While “Stop at Two” has been described as basically successful or "over-successful", skeptics of interventionism claim that the demographic transition would have occurred anyway, especially in such an urbanized country as Singapore. As the demographic transition model shows, once the population passes a certain point, the birth rate will be lower than the death rate thus decrease in population occurs. An example of this is Japan, a nearby country that is going through this path.
In addition the “Stop at Two” scheme is criticized for the social and ethical issues it has created. The general hallmark of these pro-population growth policies is that they had a very strong sense and a likely intention of eugenics beliefs. The policies are structured to reduce/discourage the birthing capabilities of less educated women who are seen as having less intelligent genes, and giving preference to boosting the birth rates of women who are at least tertiary educated and thus deemed to have more intelligent genes. This lead to the growing gap of the poor and the wealthy leaving social issues. It also completely ignores the fact that often the poor need more children for labor. Despite the Scheme`s over success, there were many variables of the country that was ignored.
-Tomo & Nitin
From 1980s and onwards, the government encouraged parents to have more children because birth numbers had fallen below replacement levels. In 1983, Lee Kuan Yew stated publicly that the failure and lack of interest of female university graduates to marry and bear children was a serious social problem. The fertility in 1983 stood at 1.61, a downwards trend since 1977. In a bid to boost the population fertility rate, the government introduced a series of policies starting from 1983. One of the main policies announced officially to replace the “Stop at Two” scheme was called 'Three or More, (if you can afford it)' which encouraged young couples to have more children, if they could afford it. In addition the Singaporean government is giving couples with large number of children benefits. The most valuable of these is an S$20,000 (AU$15,500) rebate for couples having a fourth child. These policies have been described as 'population rejuvenation'. Its goal was to address the aging of Singapore, which was threatening the country's quality of life. The campaign has had some success. The number of births increased as well as eliminated the social problems which were introduced in the 'stop at two' policy. In 1987 and 1988, Singapore’s fertility rose to 1.96 TFR, however the downward trend continued from 1989. Today the Singaporean TFR stands at 1.2(2012) the lowest yet.
ReplyDeleteTo tackle the issue of the dwindling population Singapore has been opening the doors to foreigners in order to maintain or boost our population. In 30 years since 1980, Singapore has almost doubled it`s population including foreigners, from 2.4 million in 1980, to 5.2 million in 2011. Many of which are from surrounding countries and are less educated.
Despite the fact that TFR has not shown an increase, supporting and indorsing more children between couples, particularly financially, is a wide spread tactic around the globe. For example France has a very extensive care on child care, in fact so much that it is beneficial for couples(not confined to official marriages) to have children. Today the French TFR has gone up to 2.08(2012 estimate) compared to 1.75 in 2000.
In comparison allowing many foreigners in the country is also something many developed countries have done (regardless of its intentions) but has not been considered as a positive within the country. Although it brings many cultures, ideas and people to one place, it can lead to social separation and even conflict. On economic terms it can exclude local populations from jobs since many of the foreigners are willing to work for much less. This is a problem in many European countries and in the United Kingdom; restriction of immigration has been in force.
Despite the criticism the “Stop at Two” scheme was the most effective of all the schemes towards population control that Singapore has made. However Singapore as a country was still very young, gaining independence after the Second World War. The eugenics ideas that came in to the play disconcerted many social aspects of Singapore. As a government policy it should be called a failure.
In comparison the recent schemes have been much more diplomatic with more support of the government. Regardless of what will be done, Singapore will definitely have a period of where the demographics are highly tilted on the 65 and older population, as a deficit of the “Stop at Two” scheme. Another reason to call the “Stop at Two” scheme a successful scheme but a failed policy. In this situation, Singapore should not look for answers through foreigners because many social and cultural distinctions will be lost as well as new problems can arise. In addition once the Singaporean population does grow back, over population in the country will once again be an issue.
-Tomo & Nitin