Can the little red dot stand shoulder to shoulder with the little black dress? A native islander and friends look at fashion (and such) in Singapore, and, occasionally, among her neighbours, and a little further afield
Does Adidas care?With the release of the new adiFOM Q, probably not
After the last outburst, it is hard to imagine Kanye West shutting up now. It is not unreasonable to think that his Instagram and Twitter feeds will be abuzz again, now that Adidas has announced the impending launch of their new shoe, the adiFom Q. Even we can’t ignore the obvious: That this pair of all-foam kicks has more than a passing resemblance to the freaky form of the Yeezy Foam Runner. In fact, we had thought, just looking at the side profile of the show in photographs released by Adidas, that the Yeezy Foam Runner had struck again with a sibling. As it turns out, this new EVA shoe has really nothing to do with Mr West.
On closer look, the shoe is different, even if both are are exoskeleton with ameboid holes (or shifting boomerang?). And Adidas was quick (preemptive move against a possible Kanye West attack?) that its Yeezy-seeming kick is based on 2901’s Quake, now considered an “archival” model. Like the shoes that supposedly will make you tremble, the adiFOM Q has laces and those holes of curvy shapes on the sides. And to make sure the dissimilarity holds up, it comes lined with Adidas’s Primeknit-looking socks, which possibly (and oddly) constrict the feet under a tongue too, in a style of shoe that is supposed to allow the terminal part of our legs to be free and that we can then walk naturally, as if un-shod.
Footwear that looks like something extraterrestrials left behind seems to be the future. With different foams—basically EVA (ethylene-vinyl acetate) or PU (polyurethane), or a compound of both—now offering all manner of forms, in weirder and weirder shapes and with odder and odder apertures, shoes, like clothes, are departing from the natural contours of our feet. In time, they will only be known as shoes in name, not by appearance. And Kanye West would be happy, at last, to say that he started it all.
Should the head of government wear expensive shirts to meet his people?
By Awang Sulung
Malaysian prime minister Ismail Sabri loves Burberry shirts, but his fellow Malaysians are not as enamoured with his baju. A photo shared on the PM’s Facebook page a few days ago showed him in a short-sleeved, buttoned-down, red/pink/white shirt—worn untucked—with a textual print that the British label describes as a “slogan”. As it appears to me: the phrase “UNIVERSAL PASSPORT” in two lines run from the shoulder to the hip, on both sides of the placket. That and the shirt itself are not controversial or offensive, or unflattering, but it did get people talking, including opposition members of parliament. The shirt Mr Sabri chose—in Italian silk organza, no less—costs S$2,190 or RM6,900, according to Burberry/MY. That amount, as the media reported, is “3.3 times median Malaysian salary”. With staggering inflation and rising cost of almost everything, it is understandable why people are so geram. This is this year’s quinoa-gate!
Burberry’s appeal to politicians is not new. I remember that back in the early 2000, Thailand’s then prime minister, the billionaire Thaksin Shinawatra (now in exile), loved Burberry shirts too, and was often seen in the light blue version of their house check before he was overthrown in a military coup in 2006. He even wore matching sunglasses with those shirts when he was out to meet the electorate. The Thais did not make a fuss of Mr Shinawatra’s sartorial choice, probably because his chemise was not thought to cost a bomb. Those check shirts were, after all, often seen for sale outside Burberry stores, from Patpong to Chatuchak. I do not remember how much that shirt cost back then, but Mr Shinawatra would not have bought a knock-off. Despite his wealth, out there among his constituents, he did look acceptably loong (uncle) and very much chun chan raeng ngan (working class)—one of them.
The Thais did not make a fuss of Mr Shinawatra’s sartorial choice, probably because his chemise was not thought to cost a bomb. Those check shirts were, after all, often seen for sale outside Burberry stores, from Patpong to Chatuchak
Perhaps the disapproval of Ismail Sabri’s shirt was not merely about the hefty price that went with it. What he donned was not quite walk-about wear. And, while he looked pakcik (uncle!) enough, he was not one of them; he appeared like one who would fork out more than six thousand ringgit for a shirt, which, I suspect, is rather far costlier than the rakyat-approved baju batiks that even younger politicians, such as the minister of health Khairy Jamaluddin, wears, and with considerable frequency, and, possibly, pride. And, for someone who reportedly prefers his colleagues to use mostly bahasa Malaysia, even abroad, Mr Sabri’s wearing of a shirt with blaring English words is, at the very least, hypocritical. This was not the first sighting of Mr Sabri in a shirt from Burberry. Last month in Tokyo, he wore an even bolder piece when he met with our PM Lee Hsien Loong. That shirt, with a symmetrical “abstract print” that looked like a silhouette of a Maori tekoteko (those carved human-like figures with tongues stuck out) and such, would have set Mr Sabri back by S$1,790. Possibly haram as it was small change?
I wonder, too, if there was ageism involved in the negative views that pervaded social media. Ismail Sabri is 62, and, while he is eight years younger than Mr Lee, is not considered to be of a vintage that should trifle with this thing called fesyen. Mr Sabri did not pick the less current, less ‘statement’ pieces, such as Burberry’s Simpson (or Somerton) shirt, with its familiar, non-threatening checks in “archive beige”. If he did, his choice of clothes would probably not be noticed. And if his pakaiyan is not registered, the empathy so many wishes to see could, perhaps, be discerned. Rather, Mr Sabri took a risk with fashion, and his followers were uncomfortable. As the New York Time’s Vanessa Friedman said to V magazine back in 2017, in a comment about politics and fashion, many people “think fashion is superficial and any association with it automatically denigrates the thing it is being associated with.” Politics! Some Malaysian Netizens even took issue with their PM choosing a “colonial” brand over one that is local. If only they have their own CYC in Kuala Lumpur.
Style On The Dot 