“ALL of us were more wary of treating ang mohs,” said a doctor during a court hearing recently. “The mindset is not limited to the medical service； it is there in all services. This is a reality.”
Is that true？ Or, do you share his observation？
The doctor was giving a testimony to prove that he and his colleagues were not guilty of negligence. In treating a Caucasian patient, he pleaded, the doctors could only have worked with extra care rather than commit any negligence.
The argument's usefulness in the legal case aside, the assumptions herein are thought-provoking.
Despite the progress of our times, some of us still accept that Westerners deserve better treatment than we ourselves. Now, the self-belittling mindset has been brought to the surface by the candid words of the doctor.
The truth is indeed disappointing to hear, either for the ethnic Chinese or any other Asian peoples. One may have thought that, with the economic boom and social progress in Asia, the former colonies' servile ways were gone for ever. But now it transpires that the inequality between East and West is still there.
The code of conduct for medical professionals require that they treat all patients as equals. Now, given the doctor's testimony, how can one still rest assured that his right to medical care and treatment won't be affected by his nationality or colour？
Even more serious is the hidden problem with our sense of identity.
The century-old concept wrought by the national humiliations imposed by the colonialists seems to have come back to life. Today we are told by some of our social elite with reluctance but clarity that, in their mind, we are classified as a category that deserves less attention.
What makes people more wary of Westerners？ Are they harder to please, or do they take offence more easily？ What, after all, is revealed in such a mindset？
Since childhood we have learned from Western movies that ang mohs are champions of justice and defenders of the world order who are eloquent, well-educated, sensible, handsome and beautiful. In TV shows we see that they live in spacious houses with gardens and behave graciously.
That's how our stereotyped concept of Caucasians was formed. Once I thought the idea had changed, just as things and times had changed. But now I see I was wrong.
In both material and cultural senses, Oriental peoples have deviated more or less from their native origins and started exploring a fresh path of growth in an attempt to counterbalance the Western influence and pressure.
For example, movies produced by ethnic Chinese artists tend to project the darker aspects of their society and culture, such as poverty and mean instincts, partly to please the judging panelists who decide on prizes and awards.
This is understandable and unavoidable for the Oriental societies in catching up with the more developed West. But the doctor's disclosure about the ang moh wariness is glaringly out of tune with our national education for years with its emphasis on our national identity.
It is indeed an occasion for soul-searching. Was the doctor outspoken enough to say the truth？ Or have we been deceiving ourselves all the time？
As a pet name for Westerners （and especially Americans）, ang moh has appeared in our press quite often recently. One reference was to Dr Charles Carroll, President of Highpoint Community Services Association, who volunteered as a shoe-polisher near a theatre in Clementi. Tall and strong, blue-eyed and gray-haired, the ang moh drew curious looks from passers-by when he was serving the local residents.
Another ang moh, Mr John Scott Parker, acted in a local TV sitcom, The School Days, as a Westerner who makes lots of funny mistakes with his amusingly faulty Mandarin.
They are ang mohs who fit well into our multiracial society. They are not those who, according to the doctor, require extra care or special wariness on our part.
The doctor revealed an embarrassing fact： some Singaporeans are still obsessed with a lingering sense of self-depreciation.
We do not need to show special deference to others, not even ang mohs. We do not owe anybody extra care or exceptional treatment. Asian leaders, including Mohandas Gandhi of India, Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, and Mahathir of Malaysia, are good examples of neither humble nor pushy dealings with the Western powers. In our times, there is absolutely no need to fawn on Westerners any longer.
In a sense, Singaporeans still cherish the myth that Western products are better because they are more pricey. Yet we should not upgrade the belief to such a level that it governs how we think and treat our fellow creatures.
（The author is editor of Thumbs Up. Translated by Allen Zhuang）
梳理觀念上的「紅毛」
蔡深江
一位醫(yī)生在法庭供證時(shí)說(shuō),“……我們都比較怕‘紅毛’人,這種心理并不只存在于醫(yī)藥界,也存在于整個(gè)服務(wù)業(yè),……這是真實(shí)的現(xiàn)象?！保ㄒ?jiàn)6月3日早報(bào)第6版）
真的是這樣嗎？或者,你也認(rèn)同這樣的觀點(diǎn)？
醫(yī)生以自己對(duì)白種病人只會(huì)給以額外照顧,而不會(huì)照顧不周的態(tài)度,來(lái)說(shuō)明醫(yī)療過(guò)程沒(méi)有失誤的立場(chǎng)。且不論這樣的說(shuō)法是不是對(duì)這起美國(guó)不育男子起訴本地醫(yī)生的官司有任何作用,這樣的假設(shè)和觀點(diǎn)卻頗令人玩味。
什么時(shí)代了,是誰(shuí)還停留在洋人為尊的概念之中？潛伏在一般人的觀念中的自我矮化心理,是不是被醫(yī)生坦言說(shuō)中了？
不論從華人或者東方民族的立場(chǎng)看待這種令人失望的心態(tài),都讓人覺(jué)得很不是滋味。原以為這種奴顏婢膝的心態(tài)早隨著亞洲經(jīng)濟(jì)的起飛也好、隨時(shí)代的進(jìn)步也好,應(yīng)該都遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超越并擺脫了,醫(yī)生的一句話卻又把東西方的不平等浮上臺(tái)面。
醫(yī)生守則應(yīng)該會(huì)提醒醫(yī)者對(duì)病人一視同仁,他這么一表態(tài),我們?cè)撓嘈抛约旱膰?guó)籍和膚色不會(huì)減少或影響自己受到醫(yī)藥照顧的權(quán)益嗎？而藏身在問(wèn)題背后的,是更沉重的自我定位與認(rèn)同問(wèn)題。
仿佛是一百多年前釀成割地賠款的心態(tài),從濕淋淋的防腐藥劑中蘇醒過(guò)來(lái)。今天我們的社會(huì)精英清楚而不得已地告訴我們,在他心目中,我們被分類(lèi)了,而且,是他相對(duì)不重視的一類(lèi)。
是“紅毛”難以伺候呢,還是得罪不起,造成人們潛意識(shí)里怕“ 紅毛”的心態(tài)。所謂的“怕”,指的又是什么？
自小在電影中接收到的“紅毛”形象就是具正義感、善道能言的俊男美女,也都是受過(guò)良好教育,知書(shū)達(dá)理的世界警察角色。在電視上看到的“紅毛”,住大房子,有大花園,都有錢(qián)有教養(yǎng),過(guò)去我們對(duì)洋人固定的理解就是這么形成的。可是,我以為這種觀念已經(jīng)改變了,也早就事過(guò)境遷了。
在文明、物質(zhì)、文化等方面的發(fā)展,東方人偏離了自己的本位,在西方強(qiáng)勢(shì)主導(dǎo)下,向來(lái)都處于摸索、抗拒與試圖平衡的過(guò)渡時(shí)期。華人電影多數(shù)揭示自己窮苦卑劣的一面,為的好像也與取悅西方電影獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)的評(píng)審有關(guān),這些種種,都可以理解,也有跡可尋,是物質(zhì)文明的過(guò)程中不得已的必然發(fā)展。那個(gè)醫(yī)生所剖析的“怕紅毛”心理狀態(tài),卻令人感覺(jué)突兀、意外,與數(shù)年來(lái)強(qiáng)調(diào)的國(guó)民意識(shí)、國(guó)民教育格格不入,到底是醫(yī)生坦白,還是我們自欺欺人？令人尋味。
近日“紅毛”此一對(duì)外國(guó)人（特別是對(duì)美國(guó)人）的昵稱(chēng)數(shù)度出現(xiàn)在報(bào)章上。一是46歲的高峰社區(qū)服務(wù)協(xié)會(huì)主席卡羅利博士。這位高頭大馬、灰發(fā)碧眼的“紅毛人”,出現(xiàn)在設(shè)于金文泰聯(lián)邦戲院附近的擦鞋檔,替居民擦皮鞋時(shí),路人及“顧客”立即投以好奇的目光。另一是Gavin,潘杰思,他就是在環(huán)境劇《七彩學(xué)堂》里講著半咸不淡華語(yǔ)而鬧出不少笑話的“紅毛”。他們都是在新加坡生活的“紅毛”,也融入這個(gè)多元種族文化的社會(huì)。然而他們卻不是醫(yī)生口中需要我們特別照顧或感到害怕的人。
醫(yī)生的這一句話揭露的是一個(gè)令人難過(guò)的事實(shí)：某些新加坡人擺脫不了自己內(nèi)心中妄自菲薄的心理障礙。
我們沒(méi)有必要怕任何人,包括“紅毛”,也無(wú)需對(duì)任何人特別照顧。亞洲領(lǐng)袖包括印度圣雄甘地、李光耀資政、馬來(lái)西亞首相馬哈迪等,都在對(duì)抗西方強(qiáng)權(quán)的歷史過(guò)程中展現(xiàn)堅(jiān)強(qiáng)而不亢不卑的態(tài)度,時(shí)至今日,實(shí)在沒(méi)有必要流露因任何因素引發(fā)的媚外心態(tài)。
在某種層面上,我們還停留在“舶來(lái)品、入口貨貴而好”的集體迷思狀態(tài)下,我們卻不應(yīng)該不知不覺(jué)把這樣一種心態(tài)擴(kuò)大,甚至成為待人處世的主導(dǎo)
Is that true？ Or, do you share his observation？
The doctor was giving a testimony to prove that he and his colleagues were not guilty of negligence. In treating a Caucasian patient, he pleaded, the doctors could only have worked with extra care rather than commit any negligence.
The argument's usefulness in the legal case aside, the assumptions herein are thought-provoking.
Despite the progress of our times, some of us still accept that Westerners deserve better treatment than we ourselves. Now, the self-belittling mindset has been brought to the surface by the candid words of the doctor.
The truth is indeed disappointing to hear, either for the ethnic Chinese or any other Asian peoples. One may have thought that, with the economic boom and social progress in Asia, the former colonies' servile ways were gone for ever. But now it transpires that the inequality between East and West is still there.
The code of conduct for medical professionals require that they treat all patients as equals. Now, given the doctor's testimony, how can one still rest assured that his right to medical care and treatment won't be affected by his nationality or colour？
Even more serious is the hidden problem with our sense of identity.
The century-old concept wrought by the national humiliations imposed by the colonialists seems to have come back to life. Today we are told by some of our social elite with reluctance but clarity that, in their mind, we are classified as a category that deserves less attention.
What makes people more wary of Westerners？ Are they harder to please, or do they take offence more easily？ What, after all, is revealed in such a mindset？
Since childhood we have learned from Western movies that ang mohs are champions of justice and defenders of the world order who are eloquent, well-educated, sensible, handsome and beautiful. In TV shows we see that they live in spacious houses with gardens and behave graciously.
That's how our stereotyped concept of Caucasians was formed. Once I thought the idea had changed, just as things and times had changed. But now I see I was wrong.
In both material and cultural senses, Oriental peoples have deviated more or less from their native origins and started exploring a fresh path of growth in an attempt to counterbalance the Western influence and pressure.
For example, movies produced by ethnic Chinese artists tend to project the darker aspects of their society and culture, such as poverty and mean instincts, partly to please the judging panelists who decide on prizes and awards.
This is understandable and unavoidable for the Oriental societies in catching up with the more developed West. But the doctor's disclosure about the ang moh wariness is glaringly out of tune with our national education for years with its emphasis on our national identity.
It is indeed an occasion for soul-searching. Was the doctor outspoken enough to say the truth？ Or have we been deceiving ourselves all the time？
As a pet name for Westerners （and especially Americans）, ang moh has appeared in our press quite often recently. One reference was to Dr Charles Carroll, President of Highpoint Community Services Association, who volunteered as a shoe-polisher near a theatre in Clementi. Tall and strong, blue-eyed and gray-haired, the ang moh drew curious looks from passers-by when he was serving the local residents.
Another ang moh, Mr John Scott Parker, acted in a local TV sitcom, The School Days, as a Westerner who makes lots of funny mistakes with his amusingly faulty Mandarin.
They are ang mohs who fit well into our multiracial society. They are not those who, according to the doctor, require extra care or special wariness on our part.
The doctor revealed an embarrassing fact： some Singaporeans are still obsessed with a lingering sense of self-depreciation.
We do not need to show special deference to others, not even ang mohs. We do not owe anybody extra care or exceptional treatment. Asian leaders, including Mohandas Gandhi of India, Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, and Mahathir of Malaysia, are good examples of neither humble nor pushy dealings with the Western powers. In our times, there is absolutely no need to fawn on Westerners any longer.
In a sense, Singaporeans still cherish the myth that Western products are better because they are more pricey. Yet we should not upgrade the belief to such a level that it governs how we think and treat our fellow creatures.
（The author is editor of Thumbs Up. Translated by Allen Zhuang）
梳理觀念上的「紅毛」
蔡深江
一位醫(yī)生在法庭供證時(shí)說(shuō),“……我們都比較怕‘紅毛’人,這種心理并不只存在于醫(yī)藥界,也存在于整個(gè)服務(wù)業(yè),……這是真實(shí)的現(xiàn)象?！保ㄒ?jiàn)6月3日早報(bào)第6版）
真的是這樣嗎？或者,你也認(rèn)同這樣的觀點(diǎn)？
醫(yī)生以自己對(duì)白種病人只會(huì)給以額外照顧,而不會(huì)照顧不周的態(tài)度,來(lái)說(shuō)明醫(yī)療過(guò)程沒(méi)有失誤的立場(chǎng)。且不論這樣的說(shuō)法是不是對(duì)這起美國(guó)不育男子起訴本地醫(yī)生的官司有任何作用,這樣的假設(shè)和觀點(diǎn)卻頗令人玩味。
什么時(shí)代了,是誰(shuí)還停留在洋人為尊的概念之中？潛伏在一般人的觀念中的自我矮化心理,是不是被醫(yī)生坦言說(shuō)中了？
不論從華人或者東方民族的立場(chǎng)看待這種令人失望的心態(tài),都讓人覺(jué)得很不是滋味。原以為這種奴顏婢膝的心態(tài)早隨著亞洲經(jīng)濟(jì)的起飛也好、隨時(shí)代的進(jìn)步也好,應(yīng)該都遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超越并擺脫了,醫(yī)生的一句話卻又把東西方的不平等浮上臺(tái)面。
醫(yī)生守則應(yīng)該會(huì)提醒醫(yī)者對(duì)病人一視同仁,他這么一表態(tài),我們?cè)撓嘈抛约旱膰?guó)籍和膚色不會(huì)減少或影響自己受到醫(yī)藥照顧的權(quán)益嗎？而藏身在問(wèn)題背后的,是更沉重的自我定位與認(rèn)同問(wèn)題。
仿佛是一百多年前釀成割地賠款的心態(tài),從濕淋淋的防腐藥劑中蘇醒過(guò)來(lái)。今天我們的社會(huì)精英清楚而不得已地告訴我們,在他心目中,我們被分類(lèi)了,而且,是他相對(duì)不重視的一類(lèi)。
是“紅毛”難以伺候呢,還是得罪不起,造成人們潛意識(shí)里怕“ 紅毛”的心態(tài)。所謂的“怕”,指的又是什么？
自小在電影中接收到的“紅毛”形象就是具正義感、善道能言的俊男美女,也都是受過(guò)良好教育,知書(shū)達(dá)理的世界警察角色。在電視上看到的“紅毛”,住大房子,有大花園,都有錢(qián)有教養(yǎng),過(guò)去我們對(duì)洋人固定的理解就是這么形成的。可是,我以為這種觀念已經(jīng)改變了,也早就事過(guò)境遷了。
在文明、物質(zhì)、文化等方面的發(fā)展,東方人偏離了自己的本位,在西方強(qiáng)勢(shì)主導(dǎo)下,向來(lái)都處于摸索、抗拒與試圖平衡的過(guò)渡時(shí)期。華人電影多數(shù)揭示自己窮苦卑劣的一面,為的好像也與取悅西方電影獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)的評(píng)審有關(guān),這些種種,都可以理解,也有跡可尋,是物質(zhì)文明的過(guò)程中不得已的必然發(fā)展。那個(gè)醫(yī)生所剖析的“怕紅毛”心理狀態(tài),卻令人感覺(jué)突兀、意外,與數(shù)年來(lái)強(qiáng)調(diào)的國(guó)民意識(shí)、國(guó)民教育格格不入,到底是醫(yī)生坦白,還是我們自欺欺人？令人尋味。
近日“紅毛”此一對(duì)外國(guó)人（特別是對(duì)美國(guó)人）的昵稱(chēng)數(shù)度出現(xiàn)在報(bào)章上。一是46歲的高峰社區(qū)服務(wù)協(xié)會(huì)主席卡羅利博士。這位高頭大馬、灰發(fā)碧眼的“紅毛人”,出現(xiàn)在設(shè)于金文泰聯(lián)邦戲院附近的擦鞋檔,替居民擦皮鞋時(shí),路人及“顧客”立即投以好奇的目光。另一是Gavin,潘杰思,他就是在環(huán)境劇《七彩學(xué)堂》里講著半咸不淡華語(yǔ)而鬧出不少笑話的“紅毛”。他們都是在新加坡生活的“紅毛”,也融入這個(gè)多元種族文化的社會(huì)。然而他們卻不是醫(yī)生口中需要我們特別照顧或感到害怕的人。
醫(yī)生的這一句話揭露的是一個(gè)令人難過(guò)的事實(shí)：某些新加坡人擺脫不了自己內(nèi)心中妄自菲薄的心理障礙。
我們沒(méi)有必要怕任何人,包括“紅毛”,也無(wú)需對(duì)任何人特別照顧。亞洲領(lǐng)袖包括印度圣雄甘地、李光耀資政、馬來(lái)西亞首相馬哈迪等,都在對(duì)抗西方強(qiáng)權(quán)的歷史過(guò)程中展現(xiàn)堅(jiān)強(qiáng)而不亢不卑的態(tài)度,時(shí)至今日,實(shí)在沒(méi)有必要流露因任何因素引發(fā)的媚外心態(tài)。
在某種層面上,我們還停留在“舶來(lái)品、入口貨貴而好”的集體迷思狀態(tài)下,我們卻不應(yīng)該不知不覺(jué)把這樣一種心態(tài)擴(kuò)大,甚至成為待人處世的主導(dǎo)