Lee Kuan Yew's poor response to Joan Sim's social question
-
Lee Kuan Yew’s ‘below the the belt’ answer
Posted by theonlinecitizen on September 9, 2011
Education Minister Heng Swee Keat and 1,700 students and faculty members had gathered in NTU’s main auditorium to hear Mr Lee Kuan Yew give his take on the way forward for Singapore (see HERE).Singaporean Joan Sim, a PhD student at Nanyang Technological University’s (NTU) School of Biological Sciences posed the following question to Mr Lee:
“Given the big influx of immigrants here in a short time, and a dilution of the national identity, what can we do to create a sense of belonging and foster social cohesiveness?”
She had expected Mr Lee to ask her questions as well but the questions he asked her took her by surprise.
He wanted to know how old she was. When she replied that she was twenty-seven, he asked if she was married. In response to her reply in the negative, he asked when she would finish her PHD and calculated that she would be twenty-nine when done.
He then proceeded to ask if she had a boyfriend. Her negative answer led Mr Lee to draw the crowd’s attention to the female biological clock and a woman’s child-bearing years stating that after 35, the dangers of having children with Down syndrome rises.
He concluded their question and answer session with advising her not to waste time and wishing her well in both her PHD and getting a boyfriend.
While the issues of a declining birth rate and immigration are linked, I am not sure that one is a direct causation or effect of the other. In that sense, Mr Lee totally evaded Ms Sim’s question. The government has defended its policy on immigration by stating that foreigners are needed to boost the declining birthrates but is that a long term solution?
Secondly, Ms Sim was not questioning the policy of using immigration to boost declining birth rates; she was merely asking how to build social cohesiveness. There was simply no need to embarrass her by pointing out that she was single in front of an audience. Besides, it almost seems like he is blaming her and all other singletons for the need for immigration!
There are many reasons for Singapore’s declining birth rate. It cannot be simplified into young people wasting time and not getting married.
In our increasingly busy lives, the business of finding a suitable partner is a complex one. Finding time to meet people is a problem that should not be underestimated. One may argue that we should learn to prioritise but that is so much easier said than done.
The cost of living in Singapore is increasing and people need to work hard to ensure that they are not left behind. Working hours are long and bosses do not necessarily understand the concept of work life balance.
When you are low in the packing order, you tend not to be the first one out of the door so suffice to say, you will spend most of your twenties in the office.
Even if people have partners and get married, they may not have children until they are in their 30s for the same reasons cited above. So in reality, the root causes of the problem are the need for greater work life balance and policies aimed at reducing the costs of living in Singapore.
Using immigrants to boost declining birthrates is but a short term measure that does not deal with the problem head on. Immigrants may not stay and even if they do, immigrants will age as well. It is therefore not sustainable.
At best, immigration can be used as a potential tool for slowing — as opposed to overcoming — population ageing.
The issues of marriage and family are deeply personal ones. For Ms Sim to have been asked these personal questions in front of a crowded room by a well-known politician, who is credited by many to be the architect of modern Singapore, must have been extremely uncomfortable. I feel for her.
Her question to Mr Lee was a fairly straight forward one which deserved a direct answer without bringing in her marital status. Ms Sim’s marital status has absolutely no bearing on fostering social cohesiveness. Nor is it her fault for not having a boyfriend or not being married. These are but side issues to the bigger problems of a declining birthrate due to increasing costs of living and longer working hours.
Singling her out is irrelevant to her question. It is also below the belt and had the dual effect of evading a direct question and shaming her for being brave enough to ask a valid question.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/09/lee-kuan-yews-below-the-the-belt-answer/
http://edvantage.com.sg/edvantage/news/news/753896/_My_mind_was_a_total_blank_.html
-
This is classic PAP act of changing and avoiding answering topic at its best
-
That was a very weak and poor performance by Lee Kuan Yew.
Seems like Lee Kuan Yew has no clue whatsoever in how PAP can create a sense of belonging and foster social cohesiveness in the face of more and more aliens in Singapore.
I think the PAP policy is bankrupt.
-
If we want solid policies, we should read up SDP's plan.
It's well written. -
Beating around the bush.
-
Lee Kuan Yew made no sincere effort at all to answer the question; just evading it through irrevelant statements.
This is really a poor showing coming from Lee Kuan Yew who claims to be a "statesman" and a "politician".
More like some third rate politician that can't even answer simple questions properly.
This is a very poor example for others.
Tin Pei Ling and those new birds in the PAP should learn a correct lesson from this episode and watch the mistakes of Lee Kuan Yew.
-
Hard Truth
-
Lucky all these years, parliament had been dominated by PAP with zero or few opposition MPs.
They are so weak in answering real critical questions.
The worst is Lee Kuan Yew, only know how to evade and snipe at others, giving replies with no substance whatsoever.
-
That is his style, he throws you off track.
But his style is getting rusty with age.
-
I think it is rude of Lee Kuan Yew to reply in such a way to Joan Sim.
She showed respect to him and didn't ask any unreasonable question.
That was very ungracious of Lee Kuan Yew.
-
LKY's reply to Ms Sim is weak.
Trinetta Chong's We fucking did it is 10x stronger.
-
Joan Sim can throw the ball back and ask why government didn't do enough matchmaking for singles in Singapore. Cite the example of how aggressive and outreach China is in doing many matching making serials by many TV stations there.
She is 27 and a PHD but she answer LKY questions meekly like a little lamb. No china woman will take it sitting down. They fire questions and can be as young as 18 to do so.
It just show how Singaporeans need to speak eloquently to be on level with politicians.
We must be able to speak our mind loud and clear. I am not siding LKY but i think we need to speak up more like the China nationals.
-
LKY should talk more now that he senile liao...................
opposition can only benefit.............
-
Originally posted by Leogirldreamer:
Joan Sim can throw the ball back and ask why government didn't do enough matchmaking for singles in Singapore. Cite the example of how aggressive and outreach China is in doing many matching making serials by many TV stations there.
She is 27 and a PHD but she answer LKY questions meekly like a little lamb. No china woman will take it sitting down. They fire questions and can be as young as 18 to do so.
It just show how Singaporeans need to speak eloquently to be on level with politicians.
We must be able to speak our mind loud and clear. I am not siding LKY but i think we need to speak up more like the China nationals.
solly hor..................some politicians can't even talk properly hor..............
i always knew they can't even think................they only know how to suck LKY's dick only.............
-
I don't think Lee Kuan Yew can really debate in public.
Chee Soon Juan said that he has poor debating skills.
You can say that Chee is biased, but I have seen no good example of Lee Kuan Yew's skills in public speaking or debate.
Lee Kuan Yew lost for words during cross-examination by Chee
The following is an exchange between Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mr Lee Kuan Yew during cross-examination on 27 May 08. Note how Mr Lee was unable to answer Dr Chee at the beginning of the session. Mr Lee appeared vulnerable at certain moments.
This was never revealed by the mainstream press. Through clever editing, the Minister Mentor is always portrayed to possess a sharp-tongue and quick-wit. This exchange explodes the myth. It will change the way you see Mr Lee and the whole PAP machinery. Shorn off their media make-up they look and perform very ordinarily.Still, his was a better performance than Lee junior who seemed nervous and stiff. It was clear that Hsien Loong could not expound the ideas that his father could. This is understandable as many of the younger generation of leaders are technocrats with few original ideas of their own.
Also, the state media went out of its way to describe Dr Chee and Ms Chee as incompetent and rude.
The transcript, taken from the audio-recording, will show this to be wholly false...
-
Originally posted by Susanteo2011:
solly hor..................some politicians can't even talk properly hor..............
Is this what a sterile political environment does to politicians?
Can't even talk, can't even debate, can't even give a proper speech. Don't know how to handle media.
I know there are PAP MPs who have never given a single public speech.
-
Originally posted by Dalforce 25:
Is this what a sterile political environment does to politicians?
Can't even talk, can't even debate, can't even give a proper speech. Don't know how to handle media.
no....................
it shows PAP wants people with no talents to be ministers.................so they won't pose a threat to the Lee Family..............
S'pore is basically a Lee Family Saga...................
-
Originally posted by Susanteo2011:
it shows PAP wants people with no talents to be ministers.................so they won't pose a threat to the Lee Family..............
Tin Pei Ling?
-
Originally posted by Dalforce 25:
Tin Pei Ling?
that bimbo ???
my pet Chihuahua has more talent than her.................
-
I feel that he just doesn't want to answer a pretty much common-sensed question.
-
if you look at LKY from the viewpoint of psychology, you will find that he is projecting his expectations onto Singaporeans from the expectation of his lee family onto him.
Strict, no mistake made, perfect result, survival at the expense of the less competitive etc..etc.. oh i also realise these are the characters of a Virgo which is the sign of LKY.
The fact that he has some inborn reading disability made him more of a perfectionist than a empathizing persona.
Maybe a bit inferior complex from this natural disability that overblows into a ego to be the best and the smartest to prove to his father he is still a good son.
just some non-professional 20cents opinions.
-
Maybe some people here have seen displays of Lee Kuan Yew's oratory or debating skills.
Maybe they can come and defend Lee Kuan Yew.
Anyone witnessed firsthand any impressive performances from Lee Kuan Yew?
-
Singaporeans are moulded by LKY into what we are today....non-mandarin speaking bananas.
Now LKY want to mould us into Global citizens with rojak parentage...lols....we are all his guinea pigs...
i feel very sorry for myself and the future generations. -
Originally posted by Leogirldreamer:
Singaporeans are moulded by LKY into what we are today....non-mandarin speaking bananas.
After Lee Kuan Yew dies, all of his biased and rubbish policies must be overthrown and the destructive trends and tendencies must all be reversed.
We can follow the example of Taiwan:
When KMT arrived in Taiwan with 2 million mainlanders in 1949, they encountered a number of problems:
1. The local Taiwanese were quite japanized after almost 50 years of Japanese colonial rules. They spoke Japanese, Hokkien or wore Japanese clothings.
2. The 2 million mainlanders spoke different Chinese dialects, causing communication problems to occur.
3. There was an urgency to de-japanize the local Taiwanese and sinicize the Taiwanese.
4. Mandarin became the main tool to create a 'cultural unity' and to overcome the communication problems and to sinicize the Taiwanese population. Other dialects were suppressed in Taiwan. For instance, if you speak a Non-Mandarin dialect in school, you will be fined and penalized. Speaking dialects were seen as "uneducated".
However after the removal of martial law in 1987 followed by democratization of Taiwan,there is a rise in the movement for protecting and speaking "mother tongue". However, this pertains mainly to native dialects of Taiwan such as Taiwanese Min Nan, Hakka, aborigine languages, which are supported by the Taiwanese government.
While some of the young mainlander Taiwanese can still speak their own dialect (such as Wu), there is hardly an incentive for them to speak. Most of the mainlander Taiwanese (of Wu heritage) I know today spoke Mandarin as like their native language.In general, the following language direction occur in Taiwan:
1. 1949-1987 - Mandarinization of Taiwan and suppression of other dialects in Taiwan
2. 1987 onwards - Rise of Taiwanese Min Nan, Hakka and other aborigine dialects due to government protection. Mainlander Taiwanese are assumed to speak Mandarin as their native 'mother tongue' and there were no incentives to promote other dialects such as Wu, Shandonese, Sichuanese, causing these dialects to be almost dying in Taiwan...However after the removal of martial law in 1987 followed by democratization of Taiwan,there is a rise in the movement for protecting and speaking "mother tongue". However, this pertains mainly to native dialects of Taiwan such as Taiwanese Min Nan, Hakka, aborigine languages, which are supported by the Taiwanese government.
-
i would think otherwise...
it was a good calculated response...he made his point without answering the second part of the question....
First, he didn't answer Joan's part of "dilution of national identity ...social cohesion..." because he did not think there is any issue here linking back to the influx of immigrants...
Second, he did made his point by hitting straight to the core with asking Joan's personal profile....to highlight there is really an issue with the rise of expectations and singles....
Third, his response is that of a veteran cross examiner to put the questioner in the right perspective prior to being cross examined...
Fourth, Joan's question may not be "diplomatically phrased" to elicit better response from an astute and veteran politician who may have felt that she needs only to focus on her studies than in politics she did not know as compared to him....
many of us may not be happy with him, but do not underestimate....even at this age....he is still sharp....i would say....