Singapore Sting

Remember the time every Indian politician promised that India would be like Singapore? Remember how its former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was idolised for the very things that Indians cannot do – be disciplined? Remember the shoppers glowingly talk about walking down Orchard Street, which had a better ring to it than London’s Oxford Street, teeming with its migrants?

Migrants. Yes. There is not much noise about the report that Indians are finding it increasingly difficult to rent houses in that country.

If you are an Indian in Singapore and looking for a house on rent, it is highly likely that you won't get one. Most Singaporean landlords don't rent their house to Indians and people from mainland China. According to local media reports, many landlords are open about it. The moment they realize that the tenant is an Indian, they say sorry and slam the door. According to a report by the BBC, a quick glance at online rental listings shows many that include the words 'no Indians, no PRCs (People's Republic of China)', sometimes followed by the word "sorry".

Such discrimination is not legally permissible. As this report says, Singapore is only about migrants. So, choosing to segregate one or two groups is racist in the extreme and shows how certain nationalities are seen as better or superior.

Among the reasons cited are smelly curries and lack of hygiene. Were one to accept these as flaws if viewed from another cultural perspective, then all ethnic groups can have similar problems. Besides, these are properties to be rented, not shared. The landlord can always add a clause that after the lease period the property should be returned in the condition it was rented out in.


I have visited several parts of Singapore and there are different smells and sights, some of which I found revolting. The residents might feel the same. ‘Little India’ is not a ghetto, but a hub of activity. And there is a growing clientele for smelly curries. I did not see much hygiene in other areas, too.

Except for the main boulevards, and their antiseptic streets and obedient flowerbeds, there are patches of a grim controlled environment, with drab beige buildings where the majority of the middle-class lives. The markets are piled with natural cures in the form of walking and flying little creatures. At dinner one night at the famed Harbour Front, a congregation of restaurants from different regions, all I recall was a woman throwing up, her indulgence a murky pool on the pavement.

I know this has nothing to do with segregation; I just wanted to recount what memories can do. Should I judge a person’s nationality by a natural occurrence such as vomiting?

As almost everyone is a migrant there is no pressure to be nationalistic in the narrow sense. I read that Indians are identified as a race, too. The product of cultural synergy would be properly referred to with a hybrid term, e.g. the child of an Indian and a Chinese would be a Chindian.

Does this complicate issues for renting out houses? Would a Chindian be turned away twice, because of the Indian and the Chinese connection, both ‘not allowed’? And would a Eurasian be more acceptable, because the ‘euro’ factor would take away the curry smell?

There are indeed some Indians who have done well for themselves, and many are second and third generation. Their legacy includes contributing to the country. But, then, can any society survive without its labour and its white collar workers? They may not live in homes where the spluttering seeds in oil reach out, but each day they keep the wheels lubricated for things to function. Denying them space merely for their origin does not reveal a modern attitude that Singapore prides itself in.

This is a silent sort of discrimination, its impact no less damning than the violent ones in other countries.

© Farzana Versey

Leave the guys alone...

People sit in an auditorium watching a wicked play. The jokes are vulgar; there is talk about the female anatomy and sex. What makes this one different? It is restricted to men only.

The reaction is that it is sexist. It is not. The director has not tried to hide intent nor the fact that “‘Only for adult men’ is my USP. It has worked. It is the first time in India, rather in the world, that such a tagline has been used”. Has it caused consternation because the characters are the regular sort?

We have shows for ladies only, be it for movies, plays or other cultural activities. Do women accompany their partners or male friends to dance bars, where men go to enjoy a few drinks and ogle at the dancers? How many women attend tamasha shows (a rustic and sensual dance performance loaded with innuendo) even in the villages where it is a staple form of entertainment?

How, then, can the playwright-director-producer Ashok Patole be put in the dock for “gender segregation” for restricting entry to ‘Ek Chavat Sandhyakaal’ (One Naughty Evening)?

He explained in an interview to Mirror:

“That is a matter of choice. Our play has adult material which, we think, is unpalatable for women. That’s why we do not wish to embarrass women, and also men. We were told by men to keep this a fun evening that they can enjoy. They claimed that they will not be able to laugh aloud at the sexy jokes if their wives were with them.”

It is shocking that he was asked whether women could not use the Indian Constitutional right to watch this play, when many women activists cry themselves hoarse over how women are portrayed. This is a closed group, and everyone knows that women too have their moments of fun. It has become quite the in thing in the metro cities for the ladies who lunch to invite a male stripper. The dynamics are changing, and although these are superficial indulgences there is no denying their usefulness as a form of social catharsis.It is beyond the male pattern Chippendales that advertises itself as :for ladies' entertainment'.

I remember watching a Dada Kondke film that was known for its rather crude humour in a small cinema hall. Curiosity about its filmmaker-actor was what prodded me. It was difficult to convince a friend to accompany me, to begin with. I was the only woman there and I could see that those sitting around me weren’t comfortable. We left mid-way.

The director, therefore, has a point when he says:

“If we had opened the play to everyone, and if some women had found it objectionable, our play would have been banned. We would have been labelled as porn-makers. Theatre-goers, who otherwise savour English sex comedies and Hindi bedroom farces, would have joined some women’s organisations, would have organised morchas against us. So, the marginal chance of doing well at the box-office would have been lost. We didn’t want that. And this tagline helped us put the play into perspective.”

This is way more honest than some ‘bold’ attempts at selling a film on the basis of making a feminist statement. Example being The Dirty Picture. Standard phrases like exploitation, empowerment, breaking the glass ceiling are used without understanding the import of these. Even the more offbeat feminist films and plays, without saying so, are indeed restrictive, in that they are catering to a female audience, have female sensibilities and make no attempt to market themselves for the consumption of men. A case in point being The Vagina Monologues, where the male, however aware and enlightened he might be, was a spectator. Unlike the woman as empathiser-observer.

This men’s only play has “two men talking about sexuality-related issues. A sexologist and a professor help a PhD student to analyze her subject: ‘Psychological, sociological and physical need of sexuality-related jokes and swear words’. It entails all those jokes that we chuckle over in private. We have just made those jokes public. What’s wrong in entertaining people? And we are not even involving people below 18. There is no malicious intent. I am a progressive director with a very broad openended view of sex and morality.”

That is the reason I find it intrusive that women would want to barge in. A female councillor after getting complaints – about what? That women could not attend a play they might find repugnant? – has muscled her way in and the shows will now have a new tagline welcoming the female audience.

I wonder if, as a matter of gender parity, they’d also use the men’s facilities.

(c) Farzana Versey