我看到另外一个关于荷兰村大便妇女的帖子，里面很多华新朋友在回复的时候，跟新加坡本地人学，用PRC来指代大陆人，我觉得有点刺眼。所以就回了一个长贴子，引证说明，新加坡人独创这个词语所写指代中国大陆人，是有贬义的。大家不要用来指代自己了。（注意了，我不是说新加坡人独创PRC这个简称本身，我是说他们把PRC 的原意（中华人民共和国）转换成了中国大陆人，这是他们的独创）。

现在觉得既然花了功夫贴那个长贴子，而且贴子本身的意义重大，所以，决定另开出来，帮助大家提高意识，以后不要用PRC(作为大陆人的意思）来指代自己或者同胞。

新加坡人自创用PRC贬义地指代中国人。我们自己就不要犯傻也自称是PRCs! （这就好比是那些台湾、香港人恶毒地称呼我们是zhina ren，然后我们自己也用zhina ren来指代自己，却不知道其中的贬意，太可笑了）。


应该说自己是 Chinese citizen, Chinese national 或者是来自 China。这两个词都是中立词语。


英文里面把词语缩小(也不仅仅是字母数目缩小，也可以是在读音感受上缩小)，很多情况下就是有贬义的。比如说，日本人在英语里中立的词是 Japanese, 那贬义的就是Japs;共产主义者英语里中立的词语是Communist，贬义的就是 Commie；穆斯林教徒英语里中立的词语是Muslim, 贬义的就是 Muzzie; 那还有Chinese（中国人）- Chink（中国佬）等等。当然也有不是这样的，比如说，澳大利亚人（白人）自己称自己是 Aussie（这个有亲昵的意思，想想看，亲昵和鄙视有一个共同点，就是不当真）。


我2011年在海峡时报上看到一篇读者来信 (Racism a thing of the past? Think again '种族歧视是昨日黄花吗？非也')，很明确指出，新加坡人用PRC作为名词指代中国大陆人的时候，就是带有嘲讽口吻(derisively)的。我看到那个信后，就收藏起来。现在贴在最下面，供大家参考(注意看红色部分）。文章在最下面，现在把关键的句子复制在这里: It (racism) involves all of us, and it is present whenever we derisively use the term 'PRCs'; whenever we treat a Caucasian with more respect or accord him more attention than we would an Asian; or whenever we dismissively refer to any group of dark-skinned men as 'Banglas' regardless of their ethnic origins.

永远不要再用PRC来指代自己了（中国人）。当然PRC用来指代中华人民共和国，是中立词语，是可以的。或者用作形容词比如PRC Citizen是可以的。但是作为名词，直接指代中国人，是绝对有贬义的。也就是说，可以讲 He is a PRC Citizen（就是这样，在欧美国家他们还是不会这么说，他们只会说He is a Chinese citizen) 但是绝对不可以接受 He is a PRC/They are PRCs。大家可能觉得奇怪为什么同一个词语，形容词和名词用法会有贬褒之分。是有的，解释如下：


英文里面，形容词和名词在一些情况下表达的微妙意思是不一样的。John is gay/John is a gay man 和 John is a gay. 表面上是一个意思，可是英文是母语的人知道，后者有贬义。同样，说一个人是黑人，你说 He is black/He is a black man，是中立描述，但是如果你说 He is a black, 别人的眉毛就会扬起来。这不是我在胡诌的，大家可以自己搜索，也可以参考这个帖子的回复：http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1289509

新加坡人不但独创了这个PRC的用法，而且还把国际英文里面非常有贬义的Chinaman/China woman之类的词语用来指代中国人。我08年的时候看到海峡时报上一个报道就是用China Woman来指代来自中国的妇女，当时感到很生气，就写了封信给海峡时报，当然他们没有发，现在我也把自己的信贴在下面:

==========================

（此文是我写的）

Dear Editor,

I refer to the article titled "Drinking binge killed China woman", written by journalist Elena Chong and published in the Courts and Crime section of the Straits Times on March 25, 2008.

Both the title and the report itself bear the term "China woman", apparently to designate a female citizen from China. I am appalled by the use of this highly offensive term in Straits Times and am writing to request that an apology be made on the inappropriate use of language.

"China woman" is apparently a term derived from its counterpart "Chinaman", which is regarded as an offensive term in English to refer to a male person from China. It carries racist connotations. For instance, the online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term "Chinaman" as "often offensive: a native of China". Other authoritative dictionaries likewise also point out the pejorative connotations of this term.

The parallel usage for females, "China woman" naturally also acquires the racist connotations attached to the original term. As a national and international publication, Straits Times should not endorse or condone the use of racist language that targets persons from a particular background.

In light of the above facts, I am writing to seek an apology from Straits Times on behalf of all people who were offended by the use of this term in your newspaper.

Sincerely

这里很热

==============================

（此信是新加坡读者写的，发表于海峡时报上）

Racism a thing of the past? Think again

ST Forum

08 June 2011

Straits Times

I BEG to differ from the views put forth by Professor Lee Wei Ling in her letter last Saturday ('Singaporeans are mostly not racist').


Prof Lee posits that racism is a phenomenon limited by and large to the elderly and the less educated, and cites the substantial Indian population in her working environment and in her social circle as evidence of that claim. Yes, this does illustrate Singapore's racial diversity, but it tells us nothing about the supposed absence of racism.


The writer seems to be suggesting that most Singaporeans are 'colour-blind', which is to say that we disregard racial characteristics when taking a person into account.It seems apparent to me, however, that this is far from the truth.


I believe the conclusion that Singaporeans are mostly a colour-blind people is an assumption that members of the dominant racial group here, such as Prof Lee and myself, are privileged with, since we do not bear the brunt of racial discrimination and prejudice.


Racism is not just about Indians and the Chinese from the People's Republic of China, and it is not just about migrant workers, though it plays out most explicitly in the majority's relations with the minorities.


It involves all of us, and it is present whenever we derisively use the term 'PRCs'; whenever we treat a Caucasian with more respect or accord him more attention than we would an Asian; or whenever we dismissively refer to any group of dark-skinned men as 'Banglas' regardless of their ethnic origins.


It is present in our media, in our television commercials, advertisements for new condominiums and fashion spreads that make out our country to be full of successful, happy and wholesome Chinese, pan-Asian and Caucasian professionals and families.


Prof Lee tries to distinguish between racism and xenophobia. But where do we draw the line between wariness of foreigners and those of a different race and culture from us? And why doesn't our xenophobia seem to extend to the lighter-skinned expatriates?


Singapore is for the most part a racially harmonious melting pot, and that is something to be happy about. But don't let the privileged majority fall into the easy trap of believing that racism is a thing of the past, or being complacent with racial diversity and forgetting the pursuit of social justice.

Tan Yee Hui(Miss)

==============================