Given a recent post (which sadly has 19 reactions), perhaps her plan is to attract "persecution", upon which she can claim asylum in Australia, which is considerably more progressive than Singapore since they indoctrinate schoolchildren into thinking that men is evil and that is why they get beaten up by women.
"4 Million Muslims Killed In Western Wars: Should We Call It Genocide?
Let us remember that in Singapore in the 1980s, Malay Muslim people were targeted for sterilization, and they continue to be told till now in many ways that births should be prevented among the community. Muslim people are targets of genocide worldwide, and we should start calling it what it is.
"In the wars that followed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. not only killed millions, but systematically destroyed the infrastructure necessary for healthy, prosperous life in those countries, then used rebuilding efforts as opportunities for profit, rather than to benefit the occupied populations. To further add to the genocidal pattern of behavior, there is ample evidence of torture and persistent rumors of sexual assault from the aftermath of Iraq’s fall. It appears likely the U.S. has contributed to further destabilization and death in the region by supporting the rise of the self-declared Islamic State of Iraq and Syria by arming rebel groups on all sides of the conflict.""
Nevermind that the "evidence" that "the United States and its allies" committed "genocide" in the Middle East is nonsense - taking the raw death counts in Middle Eastern conflicts and ascribing all of them to a deliberate Western campaign of extermination (based on a creative interpretation of a few words from George W Bush) is sophistry at best.
Nor that the claim that "the U.S. not only killed millions, but systematically destroyed the infrastructure necessary for healthy, prosperous life in those countries" is totally unsupported.
Or even that reading anything into isolated Americans' rantings would be considered "racist" and "Islamophobic" if one were looking at Muslims' opinions.
Sangeetha is plainly ignorant of Singaporean history.
What she is presumably referring to is Singapore's population control policies. However, these were not targeted by race:
Action was taken in the early stages of development to curtail fertility, a policy implemented in many developing economies to foster economic development. In the years between 1965 and 1984, population planning in Singapore was based on fertility reduction, through campaigns in family planning, sterilisation and legalised abortion using such slogans as ‘Stop at Two’ and ‘Two is Enough’. The aim of this blanket policy was to discourage large families, which were popular in all ethnic communities whether Chinese, Malay or Indian, by encouraging small families through a series of state incentives and disincentives. For example, after a family‘s ﬁrst two children, maternity leave was restricted, delivery fees were raised progressively with the number of children and priority access to school places was lost for the third and subsequent children (for more detail see Saw 1990). The result was a vast movement of women into the workplace. This campaign, coupled with rapid economic development, was immensely successful and resulted in total fertility rates dropping from 4.66 in 1965 to an unexpected low of 1.4 in 1986 (Teo and Ooi 1996). --- The Gender Inequalities of Planning in Singapore / Gillian Davidson in Gender, Planning and Human Rights
With reference to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), genocide is an act
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group
Of course, Malays have historically had higher fertility than other races in Singapore, so they would've been more affected by this particular population policy than them.
Yet, if the disparate racial impact of a neutrally framed policy is evidence of racism (to say nothing of genocide), this works both ways.
For example, the GST Voucher for 2016 is given based on one's Annual Home Value.
According to Table 58, Resident Households by Type of Dwelling, Ethnic Group of Head of Household and Tenancy, of the General Household Survey 2015, 36% of Malay Resident Households live in 1, 2 or 3 room flats (which are the housing types which should have the lowest Annual Home Values).
This compares to 24% for the resident population as a whole and 22% for Chinese (and 25% for Indians).
Therefore I conclude that the GST Voucher scheme is racist and a secret government ploy to enrich the Malays at the expense of the Chinese!