Colonialism is colonialism regardless of who the colonists were. But why the double standard applied by Malaysian government towards two of its most recent ex-colonists, namely the British and the Japanese governments?

In 1985, the Mahathir administration decided to launch a 'Buy British Last' campaign in order to force the British government to make a few concessions including the selling of its stakes in major plantations to Malaysian companies such as Guthrie.

The atrocities committed by the Japanese imperialists on the Malaysian people were far more severe than what the British ever did. The Japanese government has made only a lame apology for the atrocities committed by the Japanese military during World War II.

But its attempt to glorify its role during the WWII through the whitewashing of its school history textbooks show that Japanese are much more recalcitrant colonists than say, the British.

The Malaysian government supports Japan's bid for permanent seat on the UN Security Council at the expense of thousands of Malaysians who were murdered in cold-blood and forced into prostitution during the Japanese Occupation.

Why didn't the Malaysian government launch a 'Buy Japanese Last' campaign to coerce the Japanese government into showing full remorse for its war atrocities? Why the double standard?

Looking at the billions owed to Japan, Malaysia is far from being an 'independent' country. Nevertheless, Malaysia has failed to show that it is a sovereign country which dares to say 'no' to all forms of neo-colonialism.

Looking at the debt we owe the Japanese, is it possible to launch a 'Buy Japanese Last" campaign? The answer is clear - not only will a 'Buy Japanese Last" campaign not be launched, the government will beg the Japanese to lend them even more yen.

While we condemn the Japanese for distorting WWII history, we should remember that Malaysian school history textbooks glorify the Japanese Imperial Army as liberators Southeast Asian from the white colonists.

The books attribute the rise of nationalism thereafter to the Japanese even though millions of Southeast Asians were murdered.

What is the difference between colonists? Does skin colour make atrocities any less heinous? The severity and magnitude of the atrocities committed by the Japanese Imperial Army were far more appalling than those of the white colonists.

Were Japanese kind because they allowed a few locals to hold positions in their administration? For instance, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia's first prime minister was a district officer during the Japanese Occupation while Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew was an interpreter working for the Japanese administration.

Does this explain why our Malaysian government adopts a double standard with regards to the British and Japanese colonists?