I have never bought the argument that beauty queens are representatives of a nation. In this age of increasing superficiality I find something unsettling about skin-deep beauty in and of itself being celebrated as an achievement – which is what is actually happening in these competitions regardless of the marketing buzz that attempts to make them appear more than that. The very idea of a “competition” for beauty is a bit of an oxymoron in my view – and the nature of most such competitions is more like a titillating spectacle to cater to the rather less fine instincts of viewing kind – as the most popular section of the contests clearly demonstrates. The adding of a final “question” round in some competitions doesn’t really help except in providing some participants opportunity to handily stuff their feet in their mouths – as a quick check on youtube would readily show. I am not at all surprised the local competition was taken off TV this year. It had finally exhausted Singaporeans rather generous tolerance of sub-par programs.

However since the organizers of such competitions would like to portray the competitions and participants as worthwhile activities and role models, respectively, it is interesting to note that a basic background check was not, it seems, conducted for the current Miss Singapore World who, it turns out had been convicted of credit card fraud prior to the competition.

According to the Straits Times (Page A3, September 26th), over a two-month period last year she spent almost $8000 on 7 credit cards stolen from customers of a clinic where she was an assistant.

Frankly, if this is true, it is a big deal. I really do not think it can by any stretch of the imagination be called a “moment of folly”, that you can be let off with a slap on the wrist. That’s a two-month long moment!

Given what I have read about her, I am not surprised she has refused to give up her “crown” out of simple decency given that she’s clearly not the role model that she ought to be to inspire other young girls. The behaviour displayed is clearly more selfish than selfless. So what kind of role model are we talking about here? Perhaps this is the kind of cheap consumerist behaviour (buying $8000 worth of stuff on debt – someone else’s debt!) that is to be encouraged to make the consumer-driven economy prosper…!

I am more surprised by the reported behaviour of ERM World Marketing, organizers of the pageant, which seems to be reacting very slowly to this revelation (which it really should have caught before the competition), and which apparently responded to the ST’s queries with the line “Singaporeans did not pay for her”.

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

Weren’t they the ones that were touting this is a “national” pageant, something that Singaporeans should accept and support? I guess the minimum required in such a case is to have a product that can be accepted and supported. A pageant winner who’s a convicted cheat is not really something acceptable or supportable.

If they can’t recognized that, and take rapid action to salvage their position, I guess the sponsors, who did “pay for her” will have something to say about next year’s “national pageant”.

I wonder who is going to organize that – and really – if this is the state of affairs, why bother having one anyway?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print this article!
  • Turn this article into a PDF!
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • del.icio.us
  • Sphinn
  • Mixx