How not to get HIV/AIDS

There has been plans to introduce a law which will effectively criminalise HIV-infected persons who engage or intend to engage(how will they prove this???) in sexual acts with an uninfected person, irregardless of knowledge of their condition, effectively making it a strict liability offence.

I suggest the mere suggestion of enacting such a legislation is preposterous.

But of course, in SG where the concept of citizenry in addition to liberty is virtually non existent, it comes as no surprise that most (non-infected) persons support such a legislation.

Admittedly from a 'healthy individual's' point of view such a law is both beneficial and fair, especially towards HIV-infected individuals who knowingly engage in sexual promiscuity despite knowledge of their ailment.

Righteous non-infected persons will claim such a law will prevent irresponsible and selfish HIV-infected persons from 'spreading the plague', which is in effect true. So then, why isn't such a law appropriate?

Simply because such a law is a grossly disproportionate response to combat the spread of HIV. It is akin to executing old persons above a certain age because we have an ageing population problem. You may be lividly wondering how I could have the audacity to compare a HIV-infected person with a senior citizen. It may come as a unpleasant shock to 'normal' persons but amazingly, HIV-infected persons are persons as well. They are entitled not to be stigmatised nor discriminated against just because of their condition. They, like everyone else, have a right to life, as far as their failing immune systems will take them. It is not right to say that a HIV-infected person 'deserves his fate' because he had dangerous sexual habits, because this is being judgemental.

So how about just limiting the legislation to persons who, despite knowing of their condition, indulge and infect others by sexual contact? Again, this sounds like the next best plan, however, such a law will instead have a negative rather than positive impact, because this will make it better for persons NOT to go for HIV tests even if they suspect they are carriers, since without knowledge, they wont be caught by a legislation aimed at knowing transmitters.

Of course, SG-reans are used to protectionist and supposedly communitarian laws, which are much based on public policy rather than legal certainty. Should such a legislation be enacted it is probable that the prosecution will exercise its discretion, and use it as a weapon to target malicious infectors (such as rapists and knowing infectors). However, this again results in a want of legal certainty, something which imho is a crucial element of a true democracy.

So how should we be protected against these HIV infected persons? Rather than depending on the government to enact draconian laws, we can simply practice safe sexual habits. Thats right, no risky sex, a limited number (preferably one;)) of 'tried and tested' sexual partners, and taking the appropriate precaution. Another way is to practise safe drug-using habits, of which the safest method is not to abuse any drugs at all.

Queries

But what about HIV infectors who rape innocents?

There are already laws enacted to deal with rapists. As such, a law targeting potential HIV-infected rapists will overlap with a law targeting rapists.

What about the poor wives who are infected by their husbands who contracted HIV through having sex with prostitutes?

But why are the husbands having sex with prostitutes in the first place?

What about HIV-infected persons who purposely donate HIV-tainted blood?

There are measures in place to prevent HIV-infected persons from donating blood. Should such a measure fail, I suggest that the fault and blame should lie predominantly on the screening procedure/persons involved with the screening procedure.

rel="tag">HIV legislation in Singapore"

Equal Treatment

[NB: I do not have anything against people of a different race, sex, sexuality, disability, etc, etc. I am criticising the 'Western' concept of 'discrimination' and 'equality'.]

As the concept of homosexuality gains increasing awareness and acceptance in many societies, it is but a matter of time that campaigning by gay activists bear fruit.. In some countries there is legislation to prevent discrimination on grounds of sexuality. What about SG? Is it possible that some day in the near future, a gay person can come on TV and openly introduce his same-sex spouse without being judged? Indeed, should SG take measures to recognise and protect such liberties?

The concept of equal treatment, like many other civil liberties (or rights), has always been an idealistic one. Indeed, in SG, the level of awareness of such concepts is astonishingly poor, not least due to the lack of liberties in a supposed democracy (imho public awareness and consciousness of civil liberties is as important as the liberties themselves-even if they are not formally protected - I don't see any concerted effort by the government to educate the public on such issues). Legislation enacted to prevent discrimination against a particular sex or race, even for 'liberal countries', is simple to enact but difficult to actually apply, and even harder for a layperson to understand or utilise.

The concept of equal treatment, synonymous with discrimination is itself a fallacy, since it is impossible to treat everyone equally, irregardless of laws and norms cultivated to achieve such an aim (as I have said it is a very idealistic concept). This is simply because, everyone is different. Everyone has different perspectives and ideologies. To enact such measures, rather than liberating, it is actually resulting in the converse, as it is forcing a 'rightful' attitude down individuals throats.

[Paragraph inserted more for illustratory purpose than declaration that The Women's Charter was drafted with non-discrimination in mind]The Women's Charter provides safeguards towards women's rights. However, such a charter is actually discriminatory against men, since it is drafted specifically for women's rights. Consequently the legislation can be used by women as 'a weapon' against men, who are afforded no analogous legislative protection. But one may be tempted to argue that women, as the weaker and fairer sex, need to have protection. By such an argument, you see the fallacy that this concept presents, since this implies that women ARE weaker and fairer (discriminatory and stereotypical). Also, the concept of democracy is undermined, since women are purportedly given additional protective measures to put them on equal footing with men. How does competition occur 'equally' when one party is bestowed with an additional legislative weapon/shield? It is like having men and women compete in the same race but giving women a 10 second headstart. Chivalrous, yes, but chivalry is hardly synonymous with 'equality'.

Maybe a more generalised gender discrimination legislation, one which applies both to men AND women, would be fairer? Maybe just a wee bit, but ultimately, men AND women are different. Such legislation enacted in US and EU use the concept of a 'comparator', ie, if a woman has XYZ statistics and a man has XYZ statistics, they are deemed equal and it is consequently illegal to choose the man over the woman simply (and vice versa) because of his/her gender . But what happens when u compare a pregnant woman with...a pregnant man? [Insert pregnant pause here]

It is conceivable that employers would prefer male employees rather than married female employees because of the possibility that they may require long maternity leave, thereby not facilitating optimal usage of company resources. Of course, social policy (encouraging motherhood) means that companies would hardly 'dare' to discriminate against women for reasons of maternity leave. But the point has always been made – men and women, ARE fundamentally different, no matter how you wish to treat them equally.

So lets say for reasons of public policy, anti-sexist legislation is enacted. That will only results in floodgates for anti-discriminatory legislation, such as grounds of race, age, disabilities etc, which, incidentally, give a disproportionate benefit to the minorities once they are enacted. It sounds all odsd and fair in theory but in practice, it is flawed. Those who really need such legislative protection are usually the ones who are unaware or unable to utilise such rights. However, as such legislation are frequently infamously used as 'a weapon' rather than to protect one's rights, the resulting legal process drains national resources. Also, corporations have to divert resources to comply with such legislation. For example, unless they can give ood justification, a Mandarin printing press has to employ someone who cannot speak Mandarin, or face a legal suit. Classified ads frequently advertising for 'mandarin speaking environment' and 'female working environment' will quickly fall foul of the law. As resources have to be diverted out to compliance rather than improving their service/goods – this translates to a loss to the economy – which translates to a loss to all of us. In other words, 'Equal Treatment' means subsidising a few select 'unfortunate individuals' at the cost of compromising on our collective welfare.

We all know that SG is a pragmatic nation, and we, pragmatic citizens, such compromise towards our excellence by taking such a welfarist approach is not something we are prepared for. Of course, it is easy to be charitable when its impact is so evenly spread out among the entire population, but I will demonstrate how such legislation can force compromise on an individual's part as well.

Especially so would be anti-discriminatory legislation against disabled persons. In US or EU, such legislation means that EVERY public facility AND/OR workplace has to be disabled-friendly, or risk the prospect of a lawsuit. So if your shop has a step that results in wheelchair bound customers being unable to access your shop, you are in breach of the law. Costs have to be incurred towards building a ramp for a potential disabled customer who may spend 0.05 of the amount spent on building the ramp. In the workplace, 'normal employees' have to compromise their work schedules to facilitate 'disabled' employees work. In other words, if 'disabled' persons are unable to take Night Shifts(eg for medical treatment at night) or lift heavy loads, then 'normal' people HAVE to cover the night shifts, AND lift the heavy loads, with no extra incentive at all. So if your workplace consists of a day and night shift and only you and a disabled person unable to take night shifts are working there, you would have to cover all the night shifts without complaint.

I suggest that such sacrifices will only be tolerated by a select few. Already, the simple act of giving up a seat in a train to older folk who need induces a sudden sleepiness in many people. Most people who champion such minority rights are either the minorities themselves or idealistic folk. Should every form of anti-discriminatory legislation surface, the 'normal' people will end up being the ones being discriminated against!

[What I am insinuating is that (especially applicable to homosexuals), do not expect the government or the people to treat you fairly or accept you for who you are just because it is 'fair' to do so. Neither should you expect any assistance or charity from the government to aid you in being recognised or accepted in society. The path to recognition and acceptance is an arduous one, but it is one which you must take on your (collective) own. Examples include making sure that there are no 'rotten-apples' who destroy the image of homosexuals by exhibiting poor behaviour in public]

Gay reporting

The frivolous comments made by a health minister in Singapore has provoked massive outrage in the Singapore blogging community (and of course the gay activists). However, we all know that one of the golden rules of ST reporting is that anything said by the government, especially propaganda is instantly deemed reputable and hence publishable in the ST.

The allegation that gays contribute greatly to the rise in AIDS levels is not only unfounded but irresponsible and insensitive. One wonders if our leaders are really so bigoted and close-minded to issues such as homosexuality, in which case we should really query if such close-minded people are worthy enough to lead us especially since it is an oxymoron for such people to promote 'creativity' and 'critical thinking'.

But of course, the excellence of our ministers are hardly in doubt, since most of them are the elite from our population. Why then, did this aforementioned minister make such a comment regarding gays? And why did the ST media publish it?

While I reserve my opinion on homosexuality, as I am hardly qualified to cast judgment on how others choose to live their lives, I do wonder why homosexuality has suddenly blossomed into our society. Did they accede to the increasing gay population and awareness in the SG populace and thus show more recognition for it? I have never heard of the SG government acceding to public pressure before (amazing fact for a democracy), and this is no exception. Of course, the pragmatic SG government 'accepted' homosexuality because of purely economic reasons(US).

Homosexuality is still very taboo to a big part of the population. It is clear that both government and majority of the population still frown against homosexuality. Perhaps, there is a reason why there is still intolerance of homosexuals in our society. For most 'traditional' people, they feel that homosexuality is 'wrong' or 'immoral' or 'unnatural'.

What about the SG government? Are they similarly 'traditionalists' such that they cannot accept the idea of homosexuality?

I suggest that their antipathy, unlike citizens, are founded more on pragmatic reasons rather than 'traditional' reasons. As I mentioned earlier homosexuality was only tacitly acknowledged by the government a few years back, and this was due to political/economic rather than social pressure. However, the aversion to homosexuals is surely one which is analogous to the aversion to singles (yes, let us not forget that singles are very much discriminated against in SG as well). Simply because homosexuals, like singles, will not contribute to the economy as baby production factories unlike traditional heterosexual couples. As such, this will worsen the birth-rate situation in Singapore, and therefore the potential future of SG.

Such disparaging remarks provokes added antipathy toward homosexuality by adding fear (of AIDS) and anathema into the melting pot which already consists of disgust and bigotry. As such, anti-homosexuality resentment by the masses will increase, which the government hopes will translate as pro-heterosexuality- and hence more babies.

Voice of the Future

Recently there has been a lot of discussion about the potential of blogs as a force to be reckoned with; both at present and in the future. Mostly, advocates emphasise that the relative ease of blogging, along with the difficulties for authorities to track and censure, ensures that blogging is a supremely potent 'weapon' for the individual.

While the potential of blogs as an unprecedented outlet for freedom of expression certainly has grounds for optimism, there are still a number of practical forces which will stunt or limit its 'capabilities'. Indeed, the points put forward towards as evidence of the potential of blogs can be similarly used as evidence against their potential.

The ability of an individual to establish an identity on the internet is of course not a new phenomenon. Back then, a little more effort was required to create a 'homepage'. While it caught on among more technically attuned individuals, the framework of a static home page was more suited for a corporate entity rather than an individual. Of course, when blogs made an appearance not only did it facilitate easy establishment of one's presence onto the internet, it created a whole new revolutionary 'community' within a community on the internet. With blogging, a great new chapter in the social revolution of the Internet was established.

Consequently, its relative ease of usage and access means that many people can easily jump on the bandwagon and share facets of their lives. This extends towards opinions on more 'sensitive' common topics such as socio-political issues. Right-wings fear that the lack of checks and balances with regard to the content of blogs will result in 'anarchy', as readers may be misled by 'inaccurate and inappropriate' news sources. They call for measures to be put in place to 'process' blog material, censoring it if necessary. Liberalists of course assert that this is a violation to civil liberties. They anticipate that the blogging revolution will indeed create a revolution of sorts, one where the oft-suppressed voice will be heard, where the underdogs stand on equal footing with the supremal powers. One where alternate non-mainstream viewpoints can be aired, digested and the consequent action taken, which will have profound repercussions on the socio-political climate.

I suggest that such optimism is unfounded, mainly on the premise that the very foundations of its supposed beneficial property (ease of use) is also its bane. When it is so easy for one to air one's views, there will be too many 'indian chiefs', all with their own thoughts and ideals, all lacking a focused direction and purpose. When there are so many differing agendas, ideals and opinions to sift through, a reader has to make best use of his limited resource of time to choose only those he thinks are 'worthy' of notice. Traditional mediums, with their 'professionalism' and procedural requirements, will still have primary influence simply due to reputation. Ultimately, individual blogs still represent individual ideals compared to traditional mediums which represent a collective, or rather, a more influential voice as compared to individual blogs. Indeed, the requirements to set up traditional mediums are the very 'checks and balances' which give these mediums credibility and influence, and also limit the number of such entities. In economical terms, this gives rise to an 'oligopoly' [Cf virtual monopoly in Singapore's situation] rather than 'perfect competition', which is certainly a qualify balance for a functioning democracy. No doubt, a democracy would normally impute that everyone should be entitled to their own opinions, but there is a reason why laws and norms are designed to curtail civil liberties in various aspects. Certain groups may wish to pursue their own 'unholy' agendas which as a matter of public policy is undesirable to the majority interest. The proliferation of blogs will merely result in 'perfect competition', with no individual blog making a large or significant impact. The only difference is that a decentralised collective impact will similarly not make a significant effect either, primarily because they are all attuned to different, individualistic causes, and the hill of difficulty to acquiring a common ground of support and reputation so as to have a voluminous and influential voice is a steep one.

As such, I suggest that any authoritative crackdown on political blogging will not be worth the resources devoted to it, as the difficulty of tracking is high and the 'risk' of allowing the sites to operate is negligible. Yes, there have been one-off cases whereby blog contents have caused drastic actions to be taken, such as exposing scandals, but these occur because they are further amplified by reports in traditional media. Additionally, these are rare occurences, which is why they are newsworthy and hence reported. Unless blogs can hold their own fort and exert as much influence as traditional media, they will always remain inferior and their voice, inconsequential in the wider scheme of things. Should the nature of blogging be left to evolve on its own natural path, without interference from both sides, the censors and the pro-activists, it will only lead to continued impotence. To be sharpened as a (socio-political) tool, there has to be conscious, organised effort taken on the part of the participants (bloggers, readers, blog service providers). I fail to see this happening. (See below for reasons why this is unlikely).

On the same front, using a blog to advance a socio-political agenda is only as good as any other traditional methods open to a citizen in a true democracy (eg peaceful protest, unions, human rights groups). Which is why it is actually can make a significant difference in a nation like Singapore, since there is hardly any scope for 'alternative' methods of getting one's voice heard.

As such while currently its 'natural impact' is weak, it is one which is of increasing importance and relevance to Singaporeans and therefore Singaporeans should 'wake up and take notice'. I suggest that there are ways to make blogging more consequential, more influential, more voluminous. Certain well contented blogs have a decent following, but so far there are none I have detected (in a Singaporean context) that have a voluminous voice AND an agenda, which gives a blog its necessary direction and purpose to make an 'impact'.

Someone has to take the role of a 'political blog' 'aggregator', someone who already has quite a fair bit of fame in the blogosphere. The aggregator will locate and provide links and descriptions to the various blogs out there, linking the sites, uniting them within a networked community and have an effective centralisation. Bloggers who wish to have a voice will have to band together, share ideals, find common ground, maybe even a common blog, to air their views, not unlike forming a political party, for there is strength and unity in numbers, and the influence will spread from there. Why not even a political party founded with its roots on a communion of bloggers? [Think K-mart vs small provision shops. There is no way small provision shops will triumph K-mart, also taking into account that the small provision shops cater only to a specific niche market (neighbourhood area).] While practically infeasible, should these provision shop owners band together to form a rival Supermarket, they will have more chance of competition. The icing is that the technical properties of the internet means that unity of bloggers is NOT as practically infeasible as would be in the real world.][But Query: Would a centralised nature make it more susceptible to censorship?]

'The Singapore Young People's Republic' is one example where a step has been taken in the right direction, only if there was more motivation and purpose in its implementation. While admirable one cannot help but think that a spur of youthful idealism is what made most of the 'contributors' inclined to 'enroll'. (There is virtually no participation from most of the parties, mostly done by one or two main parties, its founders). Such half-heartedness is understandable as participants have other obligations, compared to traditional mediums, in which those involved are usually employed in some capacity in the traditional mediums. For blogs to make an impact, one has to become a 'full-time' blogger (devoting sufficient resources, time and effort towards maintaining its content). Again this impracticality works especially against individual bloggers who treat blogs as a leisurely ancillary pursuit (which would encompass most people).

Of course, one must not forget that in our societal climate, there is tight governmental control. Should such an advent turn into a potential 'threat', there will be countermeasures taken. However, the technical framework of the internet means that it is now impossible for absolute censorship*, which again highlights the added importance of using the internet as a tool for freedom of speech in our context.

*Of course, the technical character of the internet actually allows for a theoretical possibility of the opposite, ie, absolute regulability.

So are blogs the revolutionary tool of the individual of the present and future? Indeed, it is a worthy tool, but perhaps not as potent as its supporters purport it to be, unless pro-active measures are taken to ensure it is so. Given our social climate, it would be prudent for would be activists to take action to harness this tool– before its too late.

Summary: The current individualistic regime of blog culture is weak due to its decentralised nature. For the phenomenon of blogging to be potent, active measures must be taken towards unity and localisation. In a restrictive socio-political climate such as Singapore's, active measures to ensure optimal exploitation of this tool may be well warranted.

Dick's Repression

In this post I would like to review a 'revolutionary' blog, which some of you may be familar with.

Dick's Adventures
dickchan.blogspot.com
[Caution: contains material which may offend certain individuals]

This infamous blog in question has been the subject of many scathing comments and it is not hard to see why. Even browsing through the content cursorily, you would perhaps come to some conclusions:

This guy is sick.
This guy is a pervert
This guy is a voyeur (He is)
This guy is desperate
(bla bla)

However, judging by the hit counter below, it is evident that he does have an audience, quite a sizable one at that. Granted there are people who encountered the site through chance and were turned off by its content, never to return again forever and ever. However, it is certain that there are a number who enjoy his site. He clearly has a returning audience. With his style of writing, it is probably only decipherable by Singaporeans (and only some, at that). Perhaps his audience are limited to a specific demographic of 'sickos' and 'perverts' or rather, hormonal adolscents? While I acknowledge that not all Singaporeans are like that, the evidential success of such a site with a predominantly Singaporean audience surely points towards evidence that there is a deeply supressed voyeuristic and exhibitionistic tendencies in a proportion of Singaporeans (both male AND female).

He is a pioneer in the sense that he brings his voyeuristic tendencies and fantasies to the blogosphere in a 'Singaporean' context. (There are other blogs, especially extraterritorially, which offer sexual content but it is doubtful if there is similar content to that of dickchan.blogspot.com, ie, overlying theme of voyeurism.)

No doubt, the author is probably a hormonal teenager ravaged with testosterone, and using a blog as an outlet to express his fantasies. Sexual fantasies are part and parcel of a human's psyche, and there is nothing wrongwith having sexual thoughts, contrary to what authorities/prudes may say. However, the characteristic of the sexual fantasies (voyeuristic and exhibitionistic) is the worrying aspect. It is one thing to dream of having a sexual relationship with a beautiful girl. It is a totally different matter, when the dream is to sneak a peek at a beautiful girl's undergarments. It is evidence of a repressed mind, one that is probably conjured up in a repressive environment. Sex has become so taboo that in their minds, people are even afraid of fantasising about conventional sex. Sex has become so forbidden, so elusive that the result is there lustful desires of sex results in implications of 'guilt'. As such, 'scared' with the 'real thing', the mind is instead twisted into accepting sneak peeks at undergarments to be associative with sex. 'Cheap thrills' are gained from 'inadvertently exposed' undergarments. Of course, the site offers textual pornography and hence the normal problems which pornography can create when indulged in applies (eg difficulty to relate to opposite sex, to form relationships, to differentiate reality from fantasy).

[Query: Is peeking at a skirt really 'more enjoyable' than a sexual encounter, or a social relationship??]

But is it all just guys who are the disgusting repressed souls who 'use' the site to indulge in their own fantasies? Probably predominantly, but are there some girls who actually 'enjoy' the site too? There is a psychological aspect, (i forgot the specific term for it), that actually deals with behavioural patterns between two parties, how they subconciously react to each other, becoming accustomed to the opposite party's reaction and role-playing(reacting) in such a way as to 'fit' the relationship between them). The role-playing between the sexes is one that is most celebrated in common culture. If this is so, and if a sizable number of Singaporean guys have such a mentality, the result is that the only way that girls can 'appeal' to these deviants are to actually dress in such a way as to facilitate the deviants fantasies/mentalities. These girls will dress up provocatively, such as wearing hipster jeans and squatting to show their thongs, or wearing very short skirts and/or low cut blouses, and of course, dressing like 'kawaii' Japanese schoolgirls since Japanese 'underground' culture , which is popular with Singaporean guys, is one of which voyeurism plays a large part. Of course, the girls will deny wanting male attention, especially sneaky attempts to look at their undergarments, saying they have a right to wear what they want, and that males should not 'cross the border'. True, and fair enough. On the male's side of the coin, the thrill is the 'forbidden fruit' of the exposed flesh and/or undergarments; on the female's side, wearing revealing clothing and then coyly and trying to prevent 'unintentional' exposure is the thrill (or alternatively complaining about such behaviour). Therefore, the denial in itself is the higher state of consciousness overriding the more primal subconciousness of the female. In other words, when these females deny that they dress up (or down) for want of attention, but rather because of their own 'personal preference', it is the higher reasoning power overriding and deluding the baser instinct, because in their higher reasoning this is 'cheap' behaviour which they do not condone, and that their own 'choice' justifies their choice of clothing, when in actual fact they are just subconciously fulfilling the social role-play.

[NB: I know I am going to be 'killed' for the above paragraph, but in mitigation please note that this does NOT apply to all girls, only those attuned to a 'DickChan' mindset, and then only maybe.]

Both sides are drawn into this psychological role-playing, unfortunately perhaps not the most healthy one.

No doubt, every country has its fair share of sexual deviants, and indeed weirder and perhaps more disturbing sexual fetishes. However, Singapore is not as morally upright as the State-controlled media would like to suggest, and this is just one minor example used to illustrate that there is a possibility that a significant proportion of Singaporeans are actually sexually repressed.

Perhaps, a way to alleviate this problem would be to relieve the age old taboos about sex, so that sex is no longer kept under a repressed facade. Primary and Secondary school 'sex education' is a step in the right direction but it is by no means a complete remedy. What needs to be done is to actually portray sex as a healthy and natural thing between two individuals, even if its for pleasure rather than procreation. What needs to be done is not to automatically associate anything sexual in nature as 'sin' and consequently banned. One of the benefits of being a sentient being is the bonus of having sex for pleasure, unlike animals, who only have sex to breed offspring. As much as powers-that-be treat us as baby factories (chiding us for being unproductive ones, at that), we must also be responsible to OURSELVES before we can be responsible citizens. And that means not repressing ourselves from pleasurable activities if appropriate. Maybe rather than using fear and guilt by droning into us the myriad dangers such as STDs and social problems (caused by unwanted childs), a positive approach, one which highlights the dangers and encourages the steps to have responsible, enjoyable sex, would be ultimately more healthy, AND beneficial for all parties involved, since sexually liberated souls enjoy better mental health, and the government literally reaps the increased fruit of labours of mums-to-be, something they have been pathetically attempting.

*I am not encouraging illicit, casual sex per se. I am encouraging being more broad-minded towards sex, one where sex is not a taboo subject, one which can be discussed without silly giggling or reference to crude anatomical jokes. Where sex is a normal part and parcel of our lives.

Colonial Mentality

Colonial mentality is a cultural notion of inferiority sometimes seen amongst populations previously subjugated and colonised by foreign entities.

Do we, as Singaporeans, suffer from colonial mentality? Does it afflict our subconciousness even today, years after the British left? Does it not only affect the people but the government as well? As a consequence does this result in a vicious cycle which only enhances our inferiority complex and exacerbates the pervasiveness of white bigotry?

While it seems that white colonialism has been driven out of our society, there is a suspicious element which infiltrates our society even today which hints of remnants of an inferiority complex from our colonial past. A subservience which stems even from the younger generation who had never experienced white dominance, perhaps in part due to the invasion of white culture and the subtle influence of their upbringing by parents brought up with a similar mentality.

While most Singaporeans will defensively* disagree with my assertation, I do not make such claims without any basis whatsoever. Neither do I conclusively assert that Singaporeans DO have a colonial mentality, I just point out factors which may point to such a finding (as I do always in all my posts).

*Definition: Constantly protecting oneself from criticism, exposure of one's shortcomings, or other real or perceived threats to the ego.

Of course, one of the most evidential forms of 'colonial mentality' is the perceived need to fake an accent whenever speaking to a white person. Suddenly, in the presence of a white person, all the singlish lingo is thrown out of window and an American twang is detected, even if the white person is actually British. But of course, it doesn't matter, as long as it is not our own 'inferior' Singaporean accent (not to be confused with Singlish).

Following American culture is widespread throughout the world, notably in Asian 'developing' or 'developed' countries, and indeed Americanism is something that afflicts our country, our embrace of American popular culture clearly evident in our various media. Not only is it limited to American white culture, but it has extended to American black culture as well, with hiphop wannabes increasingly ubiquitous on the streets. A cursory issue that I wish to point out here is the fact that many impressionable folk do not even understand the difference between different white cultures (eg UK and US), thinking them to be one general 'Western culture'. Of course that couldn't be further than the truth. However, one thing remains certain: As long as it is white/Western culture, it is 'cool' culture. As long as it is NOT our own culture, which is something to be ashamed of. Which is why all American produced shows are great and all locally produced ones suck (actually, they really do, but one can't help but feel that had the production been made overseas, it would have been lessly maligned).

I would also like to point out that the SPG phenomenon is in many ways the classic example of Colonial Mentality. SPGs who go for white men clearly are victims of colonial mentality, submitting themselves by mere virtue of colour. In their defense, they will maintain that white men are more 'gentlemanly' and know 'how to treat a lady'. Of course, not only does this reinforce evidence of their colonial mentality, it also makes local 'boys' look bad, since this is implication that local 'boys' are ungentelmanly and lack the social know-how to 'court' a lady. Local boys complain that these SPGs are all sluts and bitches and not worth their time, but again this is evidence of a deafeatist attitude and an inferiority complex, because deep down inside they feel that they cannot hold a candle to a white man. Yet again more colonial mentality. Ever wondered why there is no parallel phenomenon of SPB? Why there are no Singaporean men with white girls? Is it because white girls will never go out with Singaporean men, because they are racist? This would be the easiest conclusion to arrive to, but the predominant reason stems from an inherent inferiority complex in Singaporean men. It is common fact (not necessarily right or wrong) that men prefer to look for a partner 'downwards', a woman perhaps with lower educational level. A white woman, by virtue of her colour, is deemed 'superior', and therefore considered either out of his 'league' or out of his criteria of 'potential partners'.

Of course opposite of those who by virtue of their complex strive to emulate their colonial heroes, are the xenophobes who resent white people for the very reason of their colour. These people have no less 'colonial mentality' than they assume, because if it is by virtue of colour and stereotyping that they derive their distaste for white people, it merely represents that implicitly they 'acknowledge white dominance and resents them for that very fact'.

The disappointing aspect is that the public authorities, rather than striving to counter such mentalities, are actually similarly repressed and subjugated by a colonial mentality. Indeed, white people in locally produced TV dramas are always portrayed as the bosses, classy and well-spoken people. The foreign talent policy is one that takes the policy that foreign ang mos are naturally more talented than our local populace and should be afforded better opportunities than locals.

So how do we rid ourselves of such an unhealthy inferiority complex, if it even exists? It is not an easy task, and to do so one must consciously strive towards achieving this aim. Of course, mixing with whites will definitely help us get along better, but while doing so, we must consciously treat them as if we are treating a fellow non-white Singaporean, such as NOT faking an accent (There is a difference between speaking clearly and putting on a fake accent). Non offensive jokes with regard to a person's colour or race may be seemingly good icebreakers but they actually reinforce stereotypical thinking and hence colonial mentalities. We must realise that every individual is unique, is human, subject to similar desires, feelings and failings, regardless of colour, and thereby treating every person for what they are rather than for what we preconceive them to be.

It seems easy now in writing, but I dare say virtually every Singaporean has been at one time or another been too guilty of being too accommodating, to the extent of actually being subjugated to their will/culture, or too xenophobic, to the extent of generalising all white people as 'bad guys with bad intents'.