2. Our Perception: AIDS In Singapore

For my entry this week, I have decided to analyse a postcard distributed by the Action For AIDS Organisation in Singapore. Action For Aids (AfA) is a voluntary community-based organisation, that also acts as a charity. It is also a member of the National Council of Social Service (NCSS). The AfA usually distributes postcards about HIV testing, safe-sex practices, and general information about sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s) at public events, such as fund raisers and on their website at http://www.afa.org.sg/. This postcard was printed about 4-5 years ago, but is currently still being used on their website to promote safe-sex practices.

I was looking through a pile of postcards, when I came across the one featured above and decided to use it for my blog entry analysis, as I felt that I had a lot to write about in terms of perception and human communication. To be honest, I deliberated for quite a while over the postcard, as I was not sure if the content was too provocative or risque’ to be used on my blog. However, the fact that I deliberated over it and even asked my friends for their opinions, convinced me even more that I should use it, as it made me realize that I myself had formed perceptions over it.

My first impression of the postcard was the message. It was in contrast to the surroundings, and I found the pun on the “See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil” proverb ingenious. Most people would get the indirect message of the postcard, which is “Spread No AIDS”. I found the use of this proverb in this context extremely apt, as it has intensity due to the fact that it is widely known, and this would increase the probability of people getting the message, thus fulfilling the AfA’s aim to educate Singaporeans about HIV and AIDS.

It was only after a few seconds, that I realized that there were only men displayed on the postcard. It was only then, when I started to deliberate about using it for my blog. Due to the frequency of the men displayed nude on the postcard, I felt that the AfA was solely targeting a homosexual audience and as a result, committing the error of oversimplification, as it was only addressing one spectrum of society. Plus, by only putting men on the agenda, the perceptual error of omission was also committed, as it gives the impression that women do not suffer from HIV or AIDS. There is also distortion, as it perpetuates an erroneous impression that the majority of HIV/AIDS patients are homosexuals.

The main cause for my deliberation was the schema in my framework, which made me think of the governments’ stance towards homosexuality. This postcard was disseminated in public, and the organisation has certain ties with the government. Thus, to a certain extent, it appears to undercut the governments’ stance, as it acknowledges the homosexual presence in society.

Then, I decided to look at the message printed behind the postcard:

Based on the above caption, the postcard is trying to draw awareness towards the discrimination of HIV-positive people. If that’s the case, then the picture could be interpreted from an entirely different point of view. The “Spread No Evil” message could be referring to discrimination, not HIV/AIDS. The men could have been displayed purely for emphasis and to grab peoples’ attention. The nudity could be reflective of humanity’s vulnerability to this epidemic. Thus, it can be argued that it does not subvert the governments’ stance. As a result, I feel that there is subjectivity of interpretation in relation to the motives of this postcard. I also feel that the ambiguity of this postcard was deliberate, so as to grab the attention of the public.

It is hard for me to disregard my first impression, and thus I still do feel that the message is referring to AIDS, due to the use of the AIDS symbol in the “No” part of the message and the way the postcard is portrayed. Thus, if it is targeted towards a gay audience, it tells us a lot about how society views homosexuals in relation to HIV/AIDS in Singapore. Statistically, the percentage of HIV cases among heterosexuals in 2006 and 2007 constituted to about 65% (statistics from the Ministry of Health website, http://www.moh.gov.sg/mohcorp/statistics.aspx?id=246#table1) of all cases in Singapore. In my opinion, the postcard reflects an attribution error.

Furthermore, I can conclude that the postcard is perpetuating a personal construct of gay men, that they are all muscular, fit and thus concerned about their appearance. I can also say that, as much as the postcard has good intentions, it is propagating a stereotypical point of view in regards to gay men. This could lead to people being very judgemental towards muscular men, and also pressurise gay men to feel the need to live up to a certain ideal.

Lastly, I also observed the use of an organisational principle, figure and ground, on the postcard. Although the message is strategically placed in the middle, the picture takes up the whole postcard, and thus exerts a considerable influence on our perception.

1. Stereotypes: Perception or Reality?

In this increasingly globalized, inter-connected, ever-changing world, time has become a priceless commodity, that we are constantly trying to find new ways, gadgets, etc, to minimise and save time. Personally, I feel that we have become so obsessed with saving time, that we apply the same strategies we use when doing our work or school assignments, to when meeting or judging people. With wireless, home-delivery, Speedpost, MSN, SMS, MMS, credit card bookings, and the countless number of technological innovations that are available out there to give us what we want, and when we want it, we have become a "me" generation. And with that, the exacerbation of stereotypes.

In this first entry, I decided to write a personal reflection, as I felt that the content regarding perception and communication that was covered last week is very relevant to countless of my personal experiences. I will also be looking at stereotypes in Singapore from a social constructionist perspective. I realized that in Singapore, we are extremely judgemental and stereotypical, which is ironic, considering the fact that we represent an amalgamation of cultures, influences, languages and views. With such diversity, you would expect less stereotypical perceptions and categorization. However, with the country working by the second, time is precious. This is reflected by the people who shove on the trains, and are constantly on the look-out for a seat, and by those who are constantly running for buses, taxis, etc.

In Singapore, the mass media, our society and our education system contributes to our influences of selection. All these form our social network, and thus contributes to our preferences, beliefs, value systems, and stereotypes. As a result, the conversations I have had with people have given me insights to their perceptions and stereotypes, and in many instances, even I was the subject of controversy:

A: Your name is Steve Andre? Are you Catholic?
S: Hmmmm, no.
A: But you have a middle name?
S: You can have a middle name and not be Catholic or Christian right?

J: Are you Singaporean?
S: Yes.
J: But you don't sound like one...?
S: Ermmm... how is a Singaporean supposed to sound?
J: I don't know... you have an accent..
S: Oh... you mean, I don't speak in Singlish!

R: What are you?
S: Erm.. human?
R: No, what's your race?
S: Human race?
R: Seriously la.. are you Malay, Chinese or Indian?
S: Oh.. you mean ethnic group or heritage? Well, I have Indian and Chinese heritage..
R: Oh... Do you have a Chinese name?
S: No....

D: Oh, are you fasting?
S: No. Why would I?
D: I don't know.. all my other Muslim friends are fasting..
S: I'm not Muslim..
D: Oh.. I thought you are Malay...

Those are just snippets of conversations I have had with people in Singapore. I realized that we have become so accustomed to categorizing people into the categories of Malay, Chinese, Indian or Others, that we immediately associate people to a particular ethnic group if we see any resemblance, in terms of outward appearance or behaviour in reference to our preconceived notion of the individual ethnic groups. From a name, people like to see what ethnic group you belong to, and from there, religion, and then; economic background. From the way you talk, people here also draw conclusions on whether you are a Singaporean, or judge your level of Singaporean-ness. If you speak proper English, chances are; you are not a Singaporean. I find that absurd, that we think so little of ourselves, that we assume that our people can only be Singaporean, when they stutter in Singlish. Not like I have any objection towards Singlish, I myself switch from proper English to Singlish time to time, but people tend to view speaking proper English as a foreign 'thing'. Let's give our schools and English teachers more credit, please?

With a population of approximately 4.84 million people, at least 1 million people in Singapore are non-Singaporean born residents. These 1 million people constitute of immigrants, PR-status holders and new citizens. Thus, how would we classify them? We have thousands of Japanese, Indonesian, Thai and Filipino expatriates working and living in Singapore. Additionally, 9 million tourists visit Singapore annually. At such crossroads of cultural fusion and interaction, I would think Singaporeans would try to keep an open mind and move with the changing times. Not only is Singapore getting smaller, the whole world itself is shrinking, kudos to new communication technologies and globalization. Singapore is reminiscent of any other cosmopolitan city such as, New York, London, Sydney and Kuala Lumpur.

(At my best friend, Adrianna's 21st birthday bash - multi-cultural/ethnic Singapore)

Looking at this issue from a social constructionist perspective, I feel that Singaporeans use the tools provided by their culture to create collective representations of their reality. That is why, they tend to have the perception that if you're Malay, you're supposed to think a certain way, and if you're Indian, you're supposed to look a particular way. Plus, Singaporeans are guilty of not experiencing the world directly, and constructing their world of communication by what they learn in school, experience around them, and hear from other people.