“Aiyoh, so wannabe act-cute.”
That was the first thought that flitted through my brain when I watched that now-infamous video of new PAP candidate Tin Pei Ling stamping her feet.
I wasn’t the only one who thought this way, as evidenced by the big din being made about Ms Tin this week as netizens dissected that video, and other photos taken from her Facebook account.
After making that initial snap judgment, I paused. Would it be fair to judge someone just because of the way she expresses her frustration? Or come to think of it, because of the fact that she likes to buy designer products?
It got me thinking : how come we haven’t judged any of the PAP male candidates the way that we seem to have judged Ms Tin, or indeed, the other female candidates?
In the local blogosphere, where cutting criticism of the government and the PAP abounds, the scorn heaped upon all the heads of the party’s newbies has been plentiful.
But what has struck me is how criticism of the female candidates has been based on them being, well, female.
For example, Ms Tin is not just attacked for being young. She is dismissed as a “gold-digging”, “sexy xiao mei mei” (Chinese for little sister) who is “act-cute” – to describe her in some terms used by netizens.
Another new PAP female candidate, Foo Mee Har, has been the subject of controversy for being a new citizen. But she has also been criticised as being a pretty but empty-headed “flower vase”.
Similar disparaging remarks have been made even about the looks of female opposition figures.
Lina Chiam, from the Singapore People’s Party, has been called an “aunty” and “Ah Soh” for her dressing and the way she talks, while Hazel Poa, a candidate from National Solidarity Party, has had her looks jeered at.
In contrast, the criticism of male candidates has tended to focus on their background and credentials - for example, Janil Puthucheary’s father, and Desmond Choo’s ability to relate to poor people.
Why is nobody basing their criticism of these men on their looks? Or how they dress?
I guess it’s easy – and second nature – for us to form superficial snap judgments. We do it every day, whether we’re admiring a smart dresser walking by (“wah, must be a model!”), or rolling our eyes at someone picking his nose on the MRT (“that Ah Beng is so gross!”).
And by default of their status as public figures, politicians should be judged on things like their public image and how they present themselves to voters.
But when we form impressions of them, should we not also be mindful of the kind of words that we automatically reach for to describe them?
If you think about it, it is pretty unfair to dismiss these female candidates using lazy gender stereotypes.
Like many other Singaporeans - and as a Marine Parade GRC constituent myself – I will be keeping a close eye on Ms Tin and everything that she says and does.
But I will try to see her not as a “xiao mei mei”, but a grown woman trying to prove her political chops. After all, that’s only fair.
[email protected]
That was the first thought that flitted through my brain when I watched that now-infamous video of new PAP candidate Tin Pei Ling stamping her feet.
I wasn’t the only one who thought this way, as evidenced by the big din being made about Ms Tin this week as netizens dissected that video, and other photos taken from her Facebook account.
After making that initial snap judgment, I paused. Would it be fair to judge someone just because of the way she expresses her frustration? Or come to think of it, because of the fact that she likes to buy designer products?
It got me thinking : how come we haven’t judged any of the PAP male candidates the way that we seem to have judged Ms Tin, or indeed, the other female candidates?
In the local blogosphere, where cutting criticism of the government and the PAP abounds, the scorn heaped upon all the heads of the party’s newbies has been plentiful.
But what has struck me is how criticism of the female candidates has been based on them being, well, female.
For example, Ms Tin is not just attacked for being young. She is dismissed as a “gold-digging”, “sexy xiao mei mei” (Chinese for little sister) who is “act-cute” – to describe her in some terms used by netizens.
Another new PAP female candidate, Foo Mee Har, has been the subject of controversy for being a new citizen. But she has also been criticised as being a pretty but empty-headed “flower vase”.
Similar disparaging remarks have been made even about the looks of female opposition figures.
Lina Chiam, from the Singapore People’s Party, has been called an “aunty” and “Ah Soh” for her dressing and the way she talks, while Hazel Poa, a candidate from National Solidarity Party, has had her looks jeered at.
In contrast, the criticism of male candidates has tended to focus on their background and credentials - for example, Janil Puthucheary’s father, and Desmond Choo’s ability to relate to poor people.
Why is nobody basing their criticism of these men on their looks? Or how they dress?
I guess it’s easy – and second nature – for us to form superficial snap judgments. We do it every day, whether we’re admiring a smart dresser walking by (“wah, must be a model!”), or rolling our eyes at someone picking his nose on the MRT (“that Ah Beng is so gross!”).
And by default of their status as public figures, politicians should be judged on things like their public image and how they present themselves to voters.
But when we form impressions of them, should we not also be mindful of the kind of words that we automatically reach for to describe them?
If you think about it, it is pretty unfair to dismiss these female candidates using lazy gender stereotypes.
Like many other Singaporeans - and as a Marine Parade GRC constituent myself – I will be keeping a close eye on Ms Tin and everything that she says and does.
But I will try to see her not as a “xiao mei mei”, but a grown woman trying to prove her political chops. After all, that’s only fair.
[email protected]
