Society: Xi’s the one

Over the past two decades, China’s growing economic heft and influence in global affairs has sparked admiration, annoyance, and anxiety in equal parts. From richer societies wondering how to profit off the China growth story, to lower-income ones debating the merits and pitfalls of Chinese investment in infrastructure, natural resources and much else, it’s an issue that divides people, political parties, and countries.

Not Singapore. Yet again, in a survey by Pew, Singaporeans stood alone amongst high-income countries in our affinity for China. Some 67 percent of Singaporeans had a favourable opinion of China. (This included 71 percent of ethnic Chinese Singaporeans and 59 percent of non-Chinese Singaporeans.) This contrasts with only 31 percent of Brits, 16 percent of Americans, and 12 percent of Japanese. Similarly, 63 percent of Singaporeans have confidence in Xi Jinping, Chinese leader, “to do the right thing regarding world affairs”—alongside Thailand, the highest proportion in Asia. Meanwhile, some 67 percent of Singaporeans (and Malaysians) said that China is having a “positive impact on economic conditions in their country”, the highest of all countries surveyed.

It’s notable that Singaporeans’ opinions about China and Xi are more in line with those of middle-income societies than richer ones. There could be many reasons for this, including the fact that we never had a large manufacturing base hollowed out by the offshoring of jobs, and value alignment—on everything from the role of the state in the economy to human rights, Singaporeans are probably more sympathetic to the Beijing consensus than are citizens of other rich democracies. Pew conducted the survey early this year. This was just months after members of the so-called “Fujian gang” were arrested in our biggest ever money laundering case, and amidst regular disgruntlement about the impact of Chinese capital inflows on the cost of living. These appear not to have dented our enthusiasm for China.

Unlike in many other countries, China is not an electoral issue here. No opposition party has called for a serious renegotiation of our balancing of interests vis-a-vis China and the US. Yet the persistent worry is that Singaporeans are vulnerable to pro-Beijing propaganda and interference, whether in terms of vaccine information, perceptions of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, or tensions over the South-China Sea and Taiwan. Singaporean leaders will continue to pray that we’re not forced to pick sides and defy Xi. But given the philosophies they’ve preached for decades, it’s unsurprising that so many here approve of a strong armed autocrat and his one-party state.

Society: Achieving ‘world peace’ just became a taller order

Miss Universe Singapore has thrown open its glittering doors to all Singaporean women aged 18 and above, meaning that “even [emphasis ours] women who are married, divorced or have children are eligible to enter,” wrote CNA. Organisers explained that they want to make the pageant more “inclusive”, an attempt perhaps to align the decades-old competition with evolving notions of beauty and femininity. 

Those in the business of pageantry market the annual event as a platform for young women to build self-confidence, to showcase their talents and realise their aspirations in advocacy or entertainment. It’s an impassioned message (or plea) for sure: “Miss Universe Singapore is your chance to shine on the global stage. [Winners go on to represent Singapore at Miss Universe.] Join us for an opportunity to become a role model and ambassador, embodying strength, intellect and beauty,” exclaimed a post on the official Miss Universe Singapore Instagram page, which also noted that it has launched “spectacular careers” citing previous winners Cheryl Chou and Eunice Olsen. Venezuelan Irene Sáez, who was crowned Miss Universe 1981, went on to become a mayor, a presidential candidate and a governor, and others have become social activists and spokespeople for important domestic and international issues. 

But critics have questioned the relevance of beauty pageants, considering them sexist and antiquated; objectifying women and perpetuating an idealised, and unhealthy, version of womanhood. “Such competitions strive for gravitas, interviewing women about world peace or domestic policies. But it’s hard to turn a pageant into a seminar on global politics. And it’s also hard to turn women into abstract symbols of nationhood”, wrote Rhonda Garelick for The New York Times about last year’s Miss Universe competition. “Contestants, however accomplished or philanthropic they may be, are not there to represent noble virtues, remind us of suffering or incarnate a nation’s character. They’re there to be sexy eye candy, to create watchable programming that sells products.” For all its egalitarian pretences, Miss Universe Singapore has introduced a height requirement of 1.68m. So much for welcoming diversity, given that the average height of Singaporean women is 1.61m.

In a world inundated by news of wars and climate change, we could all do with hope for peace and stability, but does it need to come packaged as a beauty queen, and all the attendant stereotypes of femininity? A broader representation of women on the Miss Universe Singapore stage may be a positive step forward, except now the rest of us will also be expected to look up to them, literally.

Sport: Quahgmire

Singapore Aquatics (SAQ) has announced swimmer Quah Ting Wen will not be going to the Paris Olympics, days after officially inviting her to join the team. Quah was supposed to represent the country in the women’s 4x100m medley relay, with her sister Jing Wen and the siblings Levinia and Letitia Sim. The quartet had qualified under an exception granted by World Aquatics. Rules dictate that of the four members in the relay team, at least two should also have qualified for individual events. At the time though, only Letitia had done so (the so-called “A” cut), in the women’s 100m and 200m breaststroke. But on July 3rd, World Aquatics had acquiesced, as part of a scheme to give weaker sporting nations a boost. On July 4th, SAQ issued an invitation to Quah.

A day later, World Aquatics invited Gan Ching Hwee to compete in the 800m and 1500m individual events under the “B” cut, a separate initiative meant to give a chance to competitors who had not qualified outright. According to SAQ, once Gan accepted, the relay exception was rendered invalid because now there were two Singaporean swimmers who had qualified for individual events too. In a medley, each team member uses a different stroke to compete. Letitia is a breaststroke specialist, Levinia backstroke, and Gan freestyle. This meant that the last slot—butterfly—had to be filled by one of the two Quah sisters. SAQ plumped for Jing Wen. Astonishingly, a similar situation between Gan and Quah had occurred in the lead up to the Tokyo Olympics in 2021. It is baffling then, that no one saw this coming.

There are two issues here. The first is World Aquatics’ terrible timing—offering Gan entry, but withdrawing the relay exception granted only two days earlier. The second appears to be misunderstanding over the poorly worded invitation. Quah believed she had signed a binding agreement confirming her participation, whereas SAQ argued it was “not 100 per cent certain” she’d be going even after signing, given that the allocation of “B” cut spots was not complete.

Quah’s very public disappointment is understandable. She has represented Singapore in three Olympics, and has won 34 gold medals across nine SEA games since 2005. Tokyo would have been a fitting farewell to a stellar career. “I know that the athlete in me…will not be okay with me ending my career like this,” she told CNA. Meanwhile, Gan, competing in her first Olympics, has sensibly avoided the controversy, preparing instead for the most important few days of her young career. Whichever side one lands on, this unsavoury saga is a distraction the athletes could have done without, a mere fortnight before the Olympic torch is lit in Paris. High time Singapore sport stopped swimming in circles.

History weekly by Faris Joraimi

For the second time in five months, Vivian Balakrishnan, minister for foreign affairs, made questionable historical arguments to justify Singapore’s position regarding Israel’s war on Gaza. On July 2nd, he described the ongoing genocide there as a “family quarrel” between “our Israeli friends and our Palestinian friends—brothers actually, the two of them”, before restating Singapore’s firm stance on a negotiated two-state solution. This follows a speech on February 29nd when Vivian described both groups as “Semitic tribes who have been fighting over this same sliver of land for such a long time.” As I argued in “Merdeka, Palestine”, framing the modern colonisation of Palestine by Zionists as just an unsolvable ancient internal conflict misrepresents the issue in an abstracted, ahistorical manner, and allows the international community—especially the US and its partners—to avoid responsibility for emboldening Israel’s expansionism through continued diplomatic, security and commercial ties with it. “The worst thing you can do in a family quarrel,” Vivian said, “is to get involved unnecessarily or with ulterior motives or to perform for an external audience.” But surely Singapore has long been involved. Any nation that purchases arms from Israel is complicit, no matter what Vivian thinks.

Contrary to his patronising lecture, Singaporeans supporting Palestine seem to be acting more out of ethical obligation than to grandstand. Instagram users rained mockery on a Ministry for Social and Family Development (MSF) post urging public intervention to stop domestic violence, parodying Vivian’s remarks. In her newsletter, Kirsten Han mused: “When my family fights, we only shout and send shitty texts. I guess the other half really does live differently. Thoughts and prayers.” Vivian’s family analogy shares a lineage with evangelical Christian and Zionist conceptions of the conflict as one between Abraham’s sons Isaac and Ishmael. While Vivian doesn’t side explicitly with either’s claim, religious Zionists argue that only Isaac’s descendants (supposedly today’s Jews) can claim the “Land of Israel”. Frequently cited scripture include lines in Genesis where God promises Abraham that “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” Ang Swee Chai, the Singaporean physician renowned for her work with Palestinians, interprets these lines differently. God’s promise was to all the children of Abraham, she told Jom at a meeting in London, and that means Muslims, Christians and Jews. It’s how you read the book that matters.

Arts: Smoking samsui woman gets to stay, but...

...her building owner gets a S$2,000 fine for not seeking prior approval for the work. After weeks of public debate—where everyone suddenly seemed to become an expert on samsui women—the three-storey mural of the red-scarfed labourer taking a smoke break won’t be needing a makeover or a public health intervention after all. Its artist, Sean Dunston, was initially told to “get rid of the cigarette” by July 3rd. But earlier this week, the Urban Redevelopment Authority and the Ministry of Health released a conciliatory joint statement clarifying that they believe the mural doesn’t promote smoking, and that it’s generally understood to be an artwork, not a tobacco ad, which would have been against the law. The massive mural along South Bridge Road became the subject of both memes and moral panic when a passer-by complained to the URA that the “offensive” and “disrespectful” portrayal “looked more like a prostitute than a hardworking samsui woman”. Aside from demeaning sex workers, this baffling complaint was bait for anyone with a passing interest in cigarettes, female representation and public art. Redditors dug up photos from the national archives proving that samsui women did, indeed, enjoy a stick or two. Others took to giving the mural a five-star rating on Google Maps. Even prominent muralist Yip Yew Chong and gender equality group Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) waded into the fray. The latter’s suggestion that the artwork might “inadvertently perpetuate a male gaze that exoticizes female subjects” was met with widespread perplexion. The group eventually apologised and acknowledged that there are many ways female labourers might look and behave. Dunston detailed his meticulous research process and shared personal experiences doing construction-related work, and the “kinship” he felt with the poorly paid migrant women who’d left their homes and taken on heavy debt to work in tin mines, on rubber plantations and as domestic servants in 1930s Singapore. The long-time Singapore resident cited labour organiser and feminist Rose Schneiderman’s famous speech as part of his decision to depict the samsui woman as both regal and at rest: “The worker must have bread, but she must have roses, too.” Perhaps, now, the samsui woman can finally take a break.

Business: ONE Championship closes in on profitability

The Singapore Indoor Stadium may be more commonly known as a venue for circuses, concerts, and theatre, but in 2011 it also hosted the first mixed martial arts (MMA) event by One Championship. Since then, Group One Holdings (ONE), its parent company, has raised over US$500m (S$674.5m) from investors like GIC, Temasek and Sequoia Capital and held over 200 events across Asia. Its recent financial performance suggests that the bleeding may one day stop. In FY22, its losses reduced to US$60.8m (S$80.9m) from US$110m (S$148.3m) the previous FY. Revenue grew by 25 percent in FY 2022 and by approximately 50 percent in 2023. Broadcasting continues to ONE's primary revenue driver and its US reach has broadened by 46 percent thanks to a collaboration with Amazon Prime Video. 

Meanwhile, One Esports, its gaming arm, has been profitable, generating US$3.1m (S$4.1m) in total income in 2022, chiefly driven by increased sponsorship revenue. Partnerships with Samsung, Intel, Logitech, and Netflix have strengthened its foothold in the gaming and esports realms. ONE hopes that its focus on cultivating a robust content ecosystem, expanding globally, and exploring new revenue streams through strategic partnerships will position it well for sustained growth and a potential IPO. Yet, the company’s overall unprofitability, the fact that its last raise of US$150m (S$202m) was in 2021, and the continuing sluggishness of public markets, means that ONE might need to raise a bridge round in the near future before it can lick any wounds, never mind celebrate a win.

Business: Love, Bonito goes global

Love, Bonito, the beloved local fashion brand founded in 2010, continues to go from strength to strength. After raising US$50m (S$67.4m) in 2021, the company expanded its offline presence, including two new stores in Hong Kong, to add to those in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Cambodia. It also ships to Australia, greater China, Philippines, UAE and the United States. Love, Bonito used the cash injection to diversify too, making investments in healthtech company Moom and activewear brand Butter. 

In 2022, the company’s revenues soared by 45 percent, (losses, attributable to the expansion and investments, also doubled) with Singapore continuing to be the primary revenue contributor. But the “rest of the world” segment saw a remarkable 73 percent revenue increase too. Encouragingly, revenues showed a balanced split between online and offline sales. Few Singaporean clothing brands have been as successful as Love, Bonito. The company’s promise of perfecting “the Asian fit” appears to have resonated in the region. It will hope that the same promise strikes a chord with the Asian-American population in bigger markets like the US.

If you enjoy Jom’s work, do get a paid subscription today to support independent journalism in Singapore.