‘High-SES’ Club Didn’t Allow Maid to Enter Club; Told Her to Wait in Carpark

In this day and age, human relations are pretty civil. Humans are all treated pretty equally, no matter which walk of life they hail from.

Indeed, it’s a far cry from the ancient ages, when a slave possessed a status that pales in comparison to a dog’s today.

(Unless you’re a recruit in BMT, but that’s for another article)

However, as modernised as the world has become, it would be foolish to assume that every single entity on this planet buys into that particular thought. The fact remains that however unified a particular flock of sheep is, there would always be a couple that differs from the norm.

Case in exemplification? The Singapore Cricket Club (SCC).

Established in 1852, SCC is the second oldest club in Singapore, with its own heritage and reputation to speak of. But it seems that other than heritage and reputation…

The club has its own set of rules too. 

Though some might not be as explicit as the others, as this man came to discover.

What happened?

On 26 Nov, Nicholas Bloodworth (no I didn’t make it up) recounted an unpleasant experience at SCC via an 800-plus-word Facebook post.

Having visited SCC to watch his nephew’s rugby match four days ago, alongside the rest of his family, they had subsequently planned to dine there.

However, what seemed to be a promising meal soon got disrupted when the family was informed by a staff member that their helper, Mary, was not actually allowed to enter the club. Thereafter she was told to wait in the car park.

While this would have ticked off 99% of the population, Bloodworth remained calm. His helper was no different, as she took it into her stride and went for a walk with Bloodworth’s infant niece.

(Goody for you, Ms Helper!)

However, the incident appears to have been a tad too much, as Bloodworth took to Facebook four days later to document the issue.

Here’s the transcript of the full post (warning; supremely long post ahead):

“So this happened.

What I thought would be an enjoyable occasion with my dad, brother, his wife, three children and their helper turned out to be… not so nice.

We were at the Singapore Cricket Club, a historical landmark in Singapore. I was there as a guest to watch my tough-as-nails nephew, whom I adore, play some good, old-timey rugby.

After the match we adjourned to the The Victoria Room, a restaurant in the club just as fancy as its colonial title. So fancy in fact, that we were blatantly told by a member of the staff that they “Don’t allow maids here.” Good, old-timey discrimination.

Shocked and taken aback by this flagrant discrimination, we tried to clarify: “You mean in this particular area, or in the restaurant ?”

“No. They’re not allowed in the club. At all. She has to wait in the car park,” replied the middle-aged Chinese staffer.

“Well, how do you know she’s not my cousin?” quips my sister-in-law.

“I will know,” he said.

I will know.

This phrase has been echoing through my mind for the past few days. Four, to be exact. I decided to take the usually sage advice of sleeping on it, but I was still upset the next day so here I am with this post. (A particularly gruelling CrossFit workout event over the weekend rendered me useless till now.)

When I first heard what the staff was telling us I was furious. I wanted to go all “Becky Lynch” on the club, which is basically a professional wrestling term for causing a scene and breaking things. But I heeded more advice — to take a walk and calm down lah.

I tried to find another place for dinner during my walk, but it was getting late, my father is old and the kids needed to get home in time for bed. By the time I returned from my walk, the family was already seated in The Victoria Room and my brother’s helper, Mary, shrugged the whole thing off and had no qualms taking my infant niece for a walk while we rushed through dinner and packed her share for later.

Many of you might be thinking, “Why would you still want to eat there if you felt so strongly about it?”

The fact is I’ve always been hotheaded and brash and this behaviour has gotten me in trouble with friends, peers, mentors and even the law on a couple of occasions. So now I’d like to think I should be able to approach these situations with a touch of class and a whole lot of zen. (It’s still a work in progress.) I didn’t think making a scene there and missing dinner entirely would have made any impact on the real issue.

So what is the purpose of this post, you may bellow.

Look guys, I am not saying you should #boycott the Singapore Cricket Club. Besides, the club’s membership requirements don’t look easy to meet so it’s hard for low SES, non-members like us to boycott them anyway.

What I’m asking them is this: if you guys have this type of policy, then why aren’t you OPEN and CRYSTAL CLEAR about it. It’s not on their website and I know this because my grumpy dad, the member of the Cricket Club, who doesn’t like surprises and wanted nothing more than to have a nice outing together, reminded me THREE times: “Hey, you need to wear pants ah. This place must wear pants, okay? I know you don’t like, but must.”

I believe in personal choice. If you want to be a part of a club that has questionable, archaic practices, it’s not my place to tell you to do otherwise. As long as no one gets hurt and the rules are fair, your time and money are yours to spend as you see fit. People think professional wrestling is dumb and glorifies toxic maculinity but hey, my favourite wrestler is @beckylynchwwe so #girlpower.

But this wasn’t fair.

It was not fair for Mary, who works hard and makes sacrifices like everyone else, to be deprived of having dinner with the family. It was not fair to my grumpy dad who thought his biggest problem was his son’s pants-hating inclinations.

I also found this article from 2001: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/Snobbery-row-as-club-bans-wom…. A similar incident occured that led the woman who brought her helper being BANNED FOR LIFE. However, it didn’t seem like it made any waves back then.

I’m not out for blood on the social media hive. I’m out for change. But change doesn’t just happen at the drop of a hat or post documenting an upsetting day. All I ask is for a proper discussion to prove we’ve grown a bit as a society. Thanks for listening. ❤️
#peaceout #letstalkaboutit #comeonguys #discrimination #lowses
#equality #beckylynchtheman

*after a discussion with some friends I edited the word racism to be replaced with discrimination as it is a much more accurate portrayal of the issue that took place.

**My apologies as I clarify that my father IS a member of the Cricket Club. I addressed this fact in the comments section early on but now that it has been shared over multiple media platforms, I feel the need to include it into the main post.

And yes, he asked to sign her in as a guest and they refused.”

This is not the first time

If you read Bloodworth’s entire essay there, you might’ve noticed one thing:

It wasn’t the first time something like this happened.

And indeed, back in 2001, SCC got into a similar controversy when a Singaporean finance executive, Angie Monksfield (I swear I’m not making it up), had a meal with her helper in the club.

Thereafter, the family dinner was abruptly disrupted by the staff at SCC, and Monksfield even had to face a disciplinary panel afterwards.

Subsequently, she was shockingly banned from the club for life for bringing her domestic helper into the club. Even her husband wasn’t spared, earning a six-month-long sentence in the process.

It has to be mentioned that the incident even made its way into the national British daily, The Telegraph.

Holy smokes.

Boycott, or no boycott?

According to SCC’s website, becoming a member doesn’t exactly require rocket science.

‘SCC Membership is open to any applicant above the age of 21 years who may be ordinarily resident in Singapore or who may have a place of business in Singapore.’

As for the refusal of entry to certain patrons… that part isn’t so clear.

And so one can’t help but wonder: if domestic helpers are so unwelcome in the premises, why aren’t the rules expressed in bold? 

Lots of questions here, and indeed there’s no clear answer here. Incidentally, the comments section of the post doesn’t help matters, with what seems to be a roaring debate over here.

Although in the end, it really is as someone said:

If the members themselves are not making noise, what reason does SCC need to amend its rules?