The BBC headline “Canada’s Justin Trudeau cannot say how often he wore blackface”* reminded of the time when Mad Dog put kiwi on his face and the anti-PAP cybernuts and ang moh tua kees juz looked the other way. But when organisations connected with the PAP had an actor do something similar, there was KPKBing.
Any real difference between Mad Dog’s face (below) and David Chew’s face (further below) when he got into trouble imitating an Indian? (Pix from Blackface Chee/ Tan Cheng Bock etc.). Note David Chew’s “Indian” skin tone is a a lot light than that of Mad Dog’s. And truth be said, lighter than that the two real Indians in the photo. Mad Dog was really brownfacing: to show solidarity with the two leading Indian oppo leaders?
So why didn’t the Nairs and their fellow cybernuts, and the ang moh tua kees KPKB earlier about what Dr Chee was doing? Could it be because David Chew was fronting a national project that involved organisations connected with the PAP govt, while Mad Dog is a hero for those who hate the PAP? Or maybe since Chee’s complexion was so dark, it amounted to “blackface”, not “brownface”, something I originally suggested.
More reason then for the minister to bite off the Nairs asses: Brownfacegate: Did you know Shanmugam also said this?
Btw, Indonesian riots prove minister’s point on zero tolerance of racist remarks?
And this Indian lady didn’t think the ad was brownface: Indian lady takes issue with charge that Nets ad was “brownface”.
All in all, it’s reasonable to conclude the Nairs and their allies were faking indignation. If their hero can do it, why can’t David Chew?
*He is probably the most politically correct political leader in power today, and the anti-Trump for Western progressives and the ang moh tua kees here who mindlessly ape them . So when no fewer than three images of him wearing blackface as a younger man surfaced, they and he have a big problem.
Thoughts of a Cynical Investor 