Skip to main content

SPH '17 Queen of Queens' Pageant - a nice ole bigoted event?

Said Melissa Koh Hui Ping, the winner of the pageant, 'I won because I have the whole package'.

…Which in singapore means, ‘I won because I conform to the dominant and advantageous criteria of ‘beauty, brains, and personality’.

Think about it for a moment. Before Vanessa Williams became the first woman of African-American descent to win the title of Miss America, could we honestly say that all the ‘whites’ who won the title prior to that won it because of ‘beauty, brains and personality’? Or did they win it because it was 'packaged' and bow-tied with the criteria of 'beauty, brains, and personality' of a singular origin? The same thing applies in quite a few instances here. Take a look at SPH’s ‘insightful blogger’ awards which was presented as a wholly Chinese event with the website being presented in English and Chinese characters. Take a look at PM Lee stating that singapore isn’t ready for a non-Chinese PM. Take a look at the local comedy, ‘serves you right’, where Malays and Indians are presented as obese rockers, parking attendants, and cornershop proprietors whilst the Chinese are presented as professionally versatile. Take a look at just about all local productions where the non-chinese are hardly represented, or if they are, play secondary roles. Take a look at, whose bigoted and sexist editors present only Chinese or oriental faces in their ‘daily chiobu’ section. Take a look at ads all around you, on the net, and without.

And tell me that the criteria of ‘beauty, brains, and personality’ is not generally, if not solely, generated by the biases of only one sector, and which simultaneously marginalises and demands conformity. If you are able to conform, all is almost well and good, provided you can get rid of all distinctions, visible or otherwise that is.

So then, tell me if Koh Hui Ping did not win because her statement, ‘I won because I have the whole package of beauty brains and personality’ did not simultaneously mean, ‘I won because I’m not Indian’.

Where egalitarian multiculturalism is not true, the criteria for ‘the whole package’ cannot but be enumerated by features of less representative value. But I suppose, Hui Ping doesn’t have enough ‘brains, beauty and personality’ to realise that. In the final analysis, we could say the Hui Ping won by a ‘walkover’ because enough perspective has been excluded from the criteria of ‘beauty, brains and personality’ to advantage one sector despite all. In this, it could very easily be alleged that ‘you couldn’t get ahead without holding others down baby.

Oh, by the way, the 2nd runner-up is supposed to be Indian. Yes. Very representative. Of what?, ought to be the question.

Go here for the images.



postscript: I wonder how many in the 'oppositional' and 'pro-democracy' sector realise this. I do know for a fact that this sector, in the UK, would be kicking up quite a fuss over something like this.


Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…