Which carries more weight for you as a source of information: an article on "Goa Today" or the Economic Survey attached to the Union Budget, which is an official Government document? For me the choice is obvious, which means that Goa's infant mortality rate in 2001 was 36 per thousand.
I am not jumping with joy, not for so little. I only mentioned Portugal's figures as an example of how in 31 years that rate came down from 53 to 5 (less than one tenth), whereas in Goa, the rate was reduced, in 40 years, from 57 to 36, not even half the rate of 1961. And you were boasting about this. You could perhaps come up with some other indicators but this one should not make you proud. Even the former Pol Pot regime could manage that or better in 40 years! You and other people on Goanet seem to think that the rest of the world stopped in its tracks while Goa "marched ahead" after 1961. The "all round improvement in social parameters" applies to the entire world, it's not Goa's exclusive achievement.
I can sense your irritation whenever Portugal is mentioned on this net, but I find it very useful, for the benefit of those who take interest in these matters, to supply some statistical data, to counter inaccuracies which are taken for facts, if left unchecked.
What I said about the neocolonialists from New Delhi was not a "wild allegation". It was said in response to a reply by Teotonio de Souza to a posting of mine, in which he considered that Portugal's granting of citizenship to Goans was a compensation for its "use and abuse of colonial territory and people for 450 years". I did not say that the neocolonialists had ruined Goa since 1961. That's what you claim that I said, which makes me think that you have a reading and comprehension problem, because you keep distorting the contents of my postings. By the way, why do you keep writing "neocolonists"? Is that Indian English or you coined a new word? I'll stick to "neocolonialists". But I am no expert in English, it's an alien language to me which I rarely speak, my mother tongue is Portuguese.
Rui Miranda Colla�o
Lisbon
From: "gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Goanet]Goa's social indicators Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 11:20:38 -0000
In spite of your sarcasm, and allusions to misinformation, I am not in the business of manufacturing stats. They were taken from an article by Dr. VA Pai Panandikar in Goa Today, Aug 2003. He was the former President of the Centre of Policy Research, New Delhi. You may like to read the article and get a little more educated about Goa. BTW, since you are jumping with joy that Portugal has now overtaken the UK in reducing infant mortality by one less baby dead, why dont you provide all the other HDR figures which place the UK way ahead of Portugal in the same report. The aim of the debate was not to compare countrys indicators, but to rebut your wild and insubstantiated allegation that *neocolonists* had ruined Goa since 1961. If you stood on the soil of Goa in 1960 and again in 2000, and saw the all round improvement of all social parameters, I can assure you that we would not be having this debate in the first place. regards, Gilbert--and thats my name.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Rui Collaco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Inaccuracies or deliberate misinformation should not pass on Goanet. That's > my "agenda". The figures on Goa's social indicators given by "Gilbert" (why > don't people identify themselves on Goanet?), seemed very good to me, for a > third world region. Some of them may even be true. However, if you check the > Union Budget 2003-2004, Economic Survey 2002-2003/Statistical Table/Human > Development Indicators/9.5 State-wise infant mortality rate > (http://indiabudget.nic.in), you get the following figures: > > Infant mortality rate > > 1961 2001 > > India 115 71 > Goa 57 36 > > This means that according to this most credible of Indian sources of > information, in 1961 the infant mortality rate in Goa was 57 (per 1000 live > births), half the rate for India, and in 2001 (forty years later) it was 36, > still half the rate of India as a whole, but not even half the rate of 40 > years before. What an achievement to boast about! > Gilbert was claiming that the rate for Goa was 70 in 1961, and is now 11! He > should check on his sources, unless he invented those rates. There are no > miracles these days, and I haven't heard about the Sultan of Brunei buying > up Goa, so there's no way the infant mortality rate could come down from 36 > to 11 per thousand in two years!!! Or are we to conclude that Indian > statistics are a free-for-all? > This is what I call misinformation, whether deliberate or by negligence. > > One last bit of info: Portugal's rate was 53 in 1970, and is now 5. The > U.K.'s is 6. That's in the United Nations Human Development Report- 2003. > > Rui Manuel Colla�o > > Lisbon
########################################################################## # Send submissions for Goanet to [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # PLEASE remember to stay on-topic (related to Goa), and avoid top-posts # # More details on Goanet at http://joingoanet.shorturl.com/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger: converse com os seus amigos online. http://messenger.msn.com.br
##########################################################################
# Send submissions for Goanet to [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # PLEASE remember to stay on-topic (related to Goa), and avoid top-posts #
# More details on Goanet at http://joingoanet.shorturl.com/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others #
##########################################################################
