Singapore’s fashion scene and modeling industry in the 1970s

In the 1970s, Singapore saw a surge in fashion consciousness alongside greater discourse on feminism through the Women’s Liberation Movement. The discourse on womanhood intensified with the introduction of the Women’s Charter, which offered Singaporean women unique rights such as retaining their maiden names and independent taxation. However, only 2 percent of Singaporean women earned SGD1,500 or more per month, and there were no female parliamentarians. [7] Despite nominal empowerment, women faced limitations in professional advancement and equitable access to high-paying jobs. Journalist Rebecca Chua observed that women's pay and education lagged behind men's, with women primarily occupying roles in industrial, nursing, and teaching sectors. Managerial opportunities for women were scarce, and governmental support for women in parliament was lacking. Chua thus concluded that women were more depoliticized in the 1970s than in the past, having absorbed traditional gender roles such as beautification and devotion to family, which she blamed in part on magazines. [8] This set the tone for this transitionary period that brought juxtaposing viewpoints on women’s conduct in society and changing gender norms.

Not only was 1975 the year when The United Nations declared the International Women’s Year, it was also when Christian Dior showed a collection in Singapore for the first time. [9] In addition to greater awareness of luxury fashion, fashion in general became more accessible to the masses as the Western fashion industry shifted from haute couture to ready-to-wear. [10] Ruth Warner, a pioneering figure in Singapore’s modeling agency world, reflected in 1976 that there were many more fashion stores in Singapore in 1956, the year she started a modeling school. She wrote, “The model business has blossomed in the past few years. It has actually become possible for a model in Singapore to earn a decent living” with “a solid core of girls capable of earning a steady $1,000 per month [...] a respectable sum compared with salaries for nurses and secretaries.” [11] The high-earning models including Carrie Wong, who worked in Hong Kong before arriving in Singapore in 1972, could demand SGD1,500 per month in 1973. [12] Carrie’s work was wide-ranging—house modeling, runway shows, photographic modeling, and appearances in newspapers, calendars, and on television.

There was also a higher circulation of fashion-related magazines such as Mode Indonesia, an Indonesian magazine catering to the “new woman” that was first published in July 1975, Femina, an Indian magazine that sold about 3000 copies in Singapore and Malaysia per month in 1975, Her World, Female, and Go. [13] Fashion shows became more frequent, hosted by hotels showcasing both local and foreign designers. The influx of Japanese department stores and more designer boutiques in Singapore catered to a clientele desiring European fashions. European labels became a symbol of modernity for Singaporean women, particularly evident in high-society events. [14] Fashion in Singapore served as both a national project and a means for individuals, especially women, to “negotiate their position, drawing on fashion’s cosmopolitanism to disturb nationalist, conservative and religious accounts,” and also to partake in international fashion culture. [15] The circulation of fashion images and shows fueled an increased investment in appearance and discussions on grooming standards.

Models—more local ones as compared to previous decades—became valorized figures as they found success locally and overseas. The increased popularity of fashion modeling in Singapore follows the trajectory that Ashley Mears documents, wherein, the 1970s UK saw a “creative revolution” that ushered in an era of “‘image-led’ or ‘aspirational’ advertising” aimed at cultivating an emotional connection between consumers and products through the fashion model. [16] Modeling and grooming courses and modeling competitions hosted by Her World and Female became commonplace, giving women new professional possibilities and the chance to travel out of Singapore. Female’s “Model Discovery ‘76” promised to fly their winner on Thai Airways International to Sydney to be groomed by the June Dally-Watkins Modelling School and SGD1,000’s worth of contracts. [17] International contracts were awarded to Singapore-based models such as Carrie Wong, who won a contract to be a house model for Emilio Pucci in Florence in 1974, and other models from modeling agency Mannequin Studio who were touring Asia. [18] By 1978, modeling was an esteemed career for women leaving school. [19] The beauty queen, the air hostess (more popularly known as the Singapore Girl), and fashion models thus held similar prestige and represented feminine ideals of the era, while simultaneously building the reputation of Singapore’s national brand.

A hierarchy of Singaporean models began to be solidified in the mainstream media, setting up criteria for what it meant to be a successful Singaporean model both in their looks and in their professional achievements. In 1978, Her World announced its nominees for “Top Models of the Year 1977,” Carrie Wong, Tina Tan, Theresa Lau, Jean Ho, and Jane Lim. These models were chosen based on having been nominated by their agencies for their volume of work in the media and on runways, and their paychecks. [20] Throughout 1979, Her World published a series called, “The Grooming of a Superstar Model,” which followed the magazine’s journey in a modeling course in conjunction with Imp International, a modeling agency, conducted by Maxine Howell Price. It covered what the model-trainees learned, including diet, skincare, hair styling and care, how to style oneself, posing, the catwalk, acting, and social etiquette that emphasized allowing men to be chivalrous. The modeling industry was increasingly regimented and regulated by the fashion media.

Yet, the stigma against modeling was not all dismantled. It was reported that low rates and the profession’s perceived lack of prestige and longevity led to a shortage of “good” models. Furthermore, there was some bias against Singaporean models who were deemed less receptive to new fashions or less capable compared to their European and Japanese counterparts. [21] There was also the risk of overexposure for successful models. On this note, Warner advised aspiring models to equip themselves with other skills for professional lives beyond modeling. [22] This period marked a transitional phase preceding the 1980s, during which the phenomenon of the supermodel ascended to prominence.

Singaporean models, celebrated for their ‘exotic’ looks, embodied the hybridity of—and the chasm between—locality and globality. Mei-Ling Chan was called the “Singapore-girl-who-made-good” because she first modeled for Her World before going to Hong Kong to further her career and eventually traveled around Europe, working as a professional model since 1962. [23] She came back to Singapore for the “Triumph ‘70” show after being recruited to model in Switzerland. She was described as “Attractive, very Oriental, not strictly beautiful.” [24] Similar to Mei-Ling, Carrie Wong was lauded for her look that combined exotic Easternness and fashionable Westernness: “Carrie is the essence of Oriental mystic and Western chic.” [25] Exoticism was a desired aesthetic trait in Asian models, demonstrating how despite their local and international success, these models were still viewed through an Orientalist lens. This chasm was expressed by US model Sandra Heidenreich, who came to Singapore and worked at the Joan Booty Modelling Academy in 1974. She claimed that “her ‘mission’ is ‘to project international trends on the local scene’” and that, “The cosmopolitan charm of your people and culture has an irresistible attraction for me.” [26] Her claim to internationalism and her reference to the attractiveness of the Singaporean people’s “charm” reproduces global hierarchies, the West’s claim to universalism, and images of the exotic East, and these are perpetuated through the Singaporean media. The appraisals of Singaporean women by their Euro-American counterparts and the further pleasure taken in these appraisals by local journalists demonstrate the internalization of colonial attitudes.

Orientalism was both maintained and challenged. The “oriental look” was not only sought after in models but was also romanticized and sold as make-up looks. [27] This is evident in the article, “Making Faces,” which presents make-up looks inspired by the Orient, and according to Carrie Wong who said that the Chinese make-up look was very popular in Paris and Rome in 1974. [28] The self-Orientalization on the part of the Singaporean media demonstrates a complex process of self-identification filtered through lenses of coloniality and globalization. Not only did Singaporeans see themselves through the eyes of Euro-America during a time of economic vulnerability, but through fashion practices and journalism, they continued to reproduce this hierarchy.

Cosmopolitanism in Singapore takes on a complex character that fuses multiple sources of influence including the Oriental and the colonial. In terms of fashion, what was happening in Singapore arguably conforms to what Regev (2007) calls “aesthetic cosmopolitanism” where cultural expression and influence are multi-directional and transcend a typical dominant-submissive hierarchy between cultures. Regev explains, “It is rather, a practically unavoidable consequence of late modernity, of the genuine interest of groupings around the world to join and participate in scenarios of ‘good life’ disseminated from the metropolitan centers and through their prism.” [29] Aesthetic cosmopolitanism here responds to how postcolonial cultures adapt and fuse cultural influences through their own creativity and agency. It is difficult, then, to identify a singular “Singaporean culture” when it is formed through such postmodern mixing. This mixing includes explorations of postcolonial identities that may retain some tropes of colonialism and Orientalism.

The concept of “cosmopolitan charm” here becomes a useful framework to think about the contradictions that arise in the expressions of modern Singaporean identity by fashion models. The concept of “charm” is furthermore useful to my analysis of models because, beyond its reference to an attractive and often elusive quality, it also has an industrial meaning. Charm schools introduced in Singapore in the 1950s where social etiquette and comportment were taught, were the precursors to the more formalized modeling agencies and schools later on. Charm is thus constructed through socially agreed codes of conduct and performance in everyday life, which can be taught and practiced.

Coolness as “cosmopolitan charm”

In the 1970s, the “cool girl” emerged to the forefront of modeling. Her rebellious attitude translated into a liberated posing style in fashion images that re-imagined the woman’s place in professional and public realms, as well as placed a heightened emphasis on courtship. She was the face of modern Singapore against the backdrop of a bygone pre-industrial era — her modernity was established based on her difference from Singapore’s past, producing nostalgic images that enabled the models to appear fresh and confident in a new age.

Coolness is the performance of emotional restraint and has been traced to several sources. Peter Stearns defines cool as such: “Being a cool character means conveying an air of disengagement, of nonchalance, and using the word is part of the process of creating the right impression.” [30] He argues that coolness, beginning from the Victorian era, was revived by the mid-twentieth century American middle-class in their “preoccupation with dispassion” to make characteristics of white anxiety, such as nihilism and detachment, desirable. [31] Other scholars have traced the beginnings of cool as an expression of emotional suppression and resistance by marginalized groups, including countercultures, subcultures, and those discriminated against for racial, religious, and sexual reasons. [32] Coolness was also a global trend popularized through Hollywood actors such as John Travolta and Harrison Ford in the 1970s, leading the trend of youthful aloofness.

Considering the postcolonial status of Singapore in the 1970s and the eagerness to establish its economic capital as a means of survival, one may argue that the disposition of coolness becomes a handy tool for a nation to perform modernity and its cultural capital. In effect, it drives economic growth through consumption and tourism. As Belk et al. argue, “Cool is a way of substituting a particular cultural capital for economic capital, although, with the commodification of cool, we shall see that economic capital is also increasingly needed.” [33] Cool for Singaporean models can be defined as the performance of nonchalance towards rapid modernization, as if one already belonged in the future. Coolness differs from the controlled poise of sophistication and exuberant playfulness of the 1960s, substituting them for emotional restraint in an act of effortlessness. This attitude is captured in fashion images and circulated to a mainstream Singaporean female readership to inculcate what aspirational femininity in modern Singapore should look like. In the performance of coolness by Singaporean models, we see how coolness is constructed on bodies and commodified through the fashion media towards a broader re-imagining of a city eager to succeed.