Benny Ong - The Singapore E

Chung May Khuen
Benny Ong: 21 Years in the British
Fashion Industry (1975–1996) and
his Design Philosophy
by Chung May Khuen
This article is about the career and works of Benny Ong, a
Singaporean fashion designer in London from the 1970s to 1990s. It
aims to challenge some of the perceptions associated with Ong and
explain why he was able to survive and succeed in an extremely
competitive fashion industry in London. The study begins with an
investigation of Ong’s early experience in London and how he became
recognised as one of Britain’s top fashion designers by the early 1980s.
The research continues by exploring Ong’s design philosophy. Besides
applying discourses on Orientalisation and self-Orientalisation, Ong’s
works at the National Museum of Singapore and those represented in
British magazines will be examined.
I.
Introduction
I
n 2006, Benny Ong, a Singaporean-born fashion designer based in
London from the 1970s to 1990s, donated 40 dresses he created
and 5 archival folders of press clips and design portfolios from the
same period to the National Museum of Singapore (NMS). A year
later, I curated ‘The Prince of Gowns: A Selection of Benny Ong’s Works
from 1988–1989 ’ at the museum, which focused on Ong’s career
as an evening gown designer. According to an article in Drapers
Record, most people know Ong for his upmarket designer cocktail
and evening wear and elegant occasion wear.1 In Singapore, Ong is
famous for dressing the late Princess Diana.2
Chung May Khuen is Curator of the Fashion Gallery at the National Museum of
Singapore. She recently completed her MA in History and Cultures of Fashion at
London College of Fashion, University of the Arts, London.
The Heritage Journal,
The Heritage
vol. 4 (2009):
Journal
pp. –
/
Benny Ong
Figure 1 ‘The Prince of Gowns: A Selection of Benny Ong’s Works from 1988–1989’
at the National Museum of Singapore, September 2007. Courtesy of Jeremy San,
Stzern Studio (Singapore).
This article is an attempt to update and provide a fuller account of Ong as a fashion designer in London from 1975 to 1996.
The initial research on Ong for the museum display revealed that
except for some articles in lifestyle magazines, trade journals and
newspapers, little is written about him and his works. There are
however, several visuals of Ong’s works featured regularly in a variety
of British magazines such as Vogue, Harpers & Queen, Woman’s
Journal, Drapers Record, etc., from 1975 to 1995. This article intends
to establish whether Ong is better known as a British or Asian
designer in London. To unravel this, Edward Said’s (1978) work on
Orientalism and Kawamura’s (2004) and Kondo’s (1997) research
on the relationship between Japanese designers in Paris and selfOrientalising will be applied in the study to examine if Ong had
similar experiences in London.
It is also worth investigating if Ong was more than just the
Singaporean evening wear designer who dressed the British royal
family. Most Singaporeans, except for some in the fashion industry,
either do not know who Ong is, or have limited knowledge of
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
his works. Tom Rao, the previous fashion editor at Her World, a
Singapore fashion magazine established in 1960, recalled that Ong
“became very popular at one time when the late Princess Diana wore
his famous drop-waist dress during her state visit to Australia.”3 To
address this, Ong’s collection of evening dresses, suits and coordinates at the NMS will be examined. To fill the gaps in the collection,
visuals from various magazines such as British Vogue, Woman’s
Journal, Homes & Gardens, etc., will be consulted.
This article is divided into two main sections. The first section
gives a brief introduction to who Ong is and why he went to London.
This is followed by a thorough investigation of the development of
his first label in 1975 and how he became recognised as one of
Britain’s top designers in the early years. The second section discusses
the design philosophy of Ong and its rationale by looking at all the
labels he developed over the years to shed some light as to whether
he is more than just an evening and occasion wear designer.
Throughout this study, written texts, visuals of Ong’s works
featured in British lifestyle magazines, fashion magazines and trade
journals, the collection of his works at the NMS, and the oral history
and email interviews that were conducted will be analysed so as
to give an extensive and comprehensive view of the designer. It is
hoped that this article will give a better understanding of Ong’s
work and his design from 1975 to 1996.
II. The Development of Benny Ong’s Label in the
Early Years
According to Callan, the author of The Thames and Hudson Dictionary of Fashion and Fashion Designers, Ong is “well known for
his evening wear, in which he handles beautiful fabrics in a sensitive
manner.”4 Indeed, Ong’s talent in creating soft, exquisite evening and
occasion wear using chiffons and silk fabrics made him a popular
choice amongst his clients right from the start of his career in
London. The sketch of a 1977 silk chiffon dress (Figure 2) and the
fan-shaped cape (Figure 3) were inspired by Princess Leia, one of
the main characters in the first Star Wars film released in 1977.
They reflected Ong’s inclination towards fantasy wear which was
what British designers were known for internationally in the 1970s
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
Figure 2 A 1977 sketch of a
silk chiffon dress by Ong which
suggests he was engaged in some
form of self-Orientalisation.
Courtesy of Worsley-Taylor A.
and 1980s. However, a closer analysis of the sketch also revealed
that there was a hint of Eastern influence in Ong’s early works. The
use of the Asian fan, the doughnut hairdo which became extremely
popular during the late Qing dynasty and early Republican China
(1901–1926) and the Mandarin collar seemed to suggest that Ong
was engaged in some form of self-Orientalising in the late 1970s.
As stated by Edward Said, Orientalism refers to a colonial-era
system of knowledge that defined East and West as fundamentally
opposite, with the East perpetually inferior and exotic.5 On the
other hand, according to Leshkowich and Jones, self-Orientalising
happens “when Asians reinterpret, produce, and consume the same
kinds of essentialised images of what is presumed to be their own
heritage, they would appear to be remaking themselves to match
Western fantasies of the Oriental Other.”6 Yet, there is nothing wrong
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
Figure 3 A 1978 silk chiffon cape by Ong inspired by Princess Leia in Star Wars.
National Museum of Singapore collection, 2007-05241.
with self-Orientalising as Wessie Ling had argued in her research
of Asian designers in Paris, “[g]iven that they are an integral part
of the Oriental people, it is not surprising to depict stereotypical
elements in their designs.”7 In fact, self-Orientalising can be seen as
a ‘trump card’ for some designers, which complements the concept
discussed by Leshkowich and Jones that self-Orientalising can be
operated “through the interplay of inception and reception, between
intentionality and positionality of both producer and the audience.”8
In this respect, self-Orientalising can be regarded as a positive
move because Asian designers retain control “over their destinies
and [modify] their styles at full capacity.”9 In Ong’s case, whether
he used his ethnicity deliberately or not, it did help him stand out
from the rest of the other designers as will be discussed later in this
work. But first, a brief introduction to Ong’s early career and why
he went to London will be examined, followed by an investigation of
his early experiences in self-Orientalising. Finally, some of the determining factors which resulted in Ong being recognised as a British
designer in London will be explored.
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
Early Years in London
Ong was probably the first Singaporean fashion designer to establish
himself in London — he developed his fashion label between 1975 to
1996 alongside established British designers such as Bruce Oldfield
and Jasper Conran. One of five children born to a publishing executive and a housewife, Ong’s interest and talent in fashion design
were already evident when he was in Anglo Chinese Junior College
(ACJC), Singapore. As a science student, Ong loved to scribble
designs on the back of his exercise books. According to Lenn Wei
Leng, his Physics teacher and Vice-Principal in ACJC, Ong already
seemed set on fashion design then.10 Hence, at a time when it was
still unusual for parents to send their children overseas to pursue
a design career, Ong left Singapore to pursue a path which he felt
was less structured, more entertaining and exciting compared to
architecture, a subject which his father had wanted him to study
initially. “It was great that my parents allowed me to travel when I
was so young, to venture out and discover my own life, at a point
when a career in fashion was unheard of, let alone for a man. It was
the biggest gift they gave to me.”11 At age 19, Ong enrolled himself
into the prestigious St. Martin’s School of Art and Design, providing him the foundation for his fashion career in London which
stretched over three decades until he closed his business and
returned home for good in 1996.
London was an obvious choice for Ong to pursue his design
career because until the 1980s, there were no institutions offering
fashion design as a formal course in Singapore. The first Fashion
Design Department in Singapore was only established in 1986 at
the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA), while LASALLE-SIA’s
Fashion Institute of Singapore (FIOS) was only launched in 2006
to serve as a leading force in fashion and fashion education. In
fact, many of the first batch of Singaporean fashion designers that
emerged in the early 1980s had no formal training in fashion schools.
For example, Thomas Wee, who started his own boutique in 1982,
learnt his skills from a tailor while Tan Yoong was trained as an
artist at NAFA in the late 1970s before he launched his Tan Yoong
line of luxury clothes and bridal wear in the early 1980s. London,
on the contrary, by the 1930s, offered courses on dress within many
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
art colleges even though the emphasis was on technical rather than
creative skills.12
Another impetus for Ong to pursue his fashion education in
London was its reputation as a fashion capital by the 1960s. It was
in the post-war period that the idea of London fashion crystallised,
as much through its imagery and media representation as in its
actual clothes. According to the 1966 Times feature, “Every decade
has its city…. Today it is London, a city steeped in tradition, seized
by change, liberated by affluence — in a decade dominated by youth,
London has burst into bloom …. It swings, it is the scene.”13 Even
though the image of a ‘Swinging’ London was more like a foreign
publicity stunt by the late 1960s, Ong was attracted to the idea of
studying fashion in London. “The hedonism of the Swinging 60s
got to a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Singaporean kid …. I thought
the roads were paved with gold — especially Carnaby Street. I had
no fear; I just plonked myself down in the middle of it.”14
Life as a Student
In 1969, Ong began a four-year BA course in fashion at St. Martin’s
School of Art and Design. Besides a Malaysian, he was the only
other Asian in his course. However, Ong never felt out of place or
ostracised by his fellow students in the UK. “You can be whatever
you like in England. The bottom line is no one notices because they
just don’t care.”15 His curriculum included fine art seminars mixed
with pattern making, sewing and life and fashion drawing. Ong
recounted with immense pleasure the freedom that he was given
to experiment with his ideas. “It was marvellous. The course didn’t
make you focus on the needs of the industry. Nowadays it’s very
different, the course includes business studies.”16
The art school training which Ong received at St. Martin’s
were attributed to the efforts of early fashion educators like Muriel
Pemberton, Madge Garland and Janey Ironside, whose initiatives
elevated the status of fashion education from being just technical
and domesticated skills to one of creativity by the time Ong arrived
in London. In the 1930s, Pemberton established fashion design
education at St. Martin’s based on the principles of painting first and
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
drawing second. After the Second World War, she spearheaded a
new approach to teaching fashion which included contextual studies
in dress and art history in St. Martin’s in 1947–1948.17 According
to Lydia Kenemy, who succeeded Pemberton as head of the Fashion
department from 1972–1987, Pemberton focused on the aesthetic
of dress by emphasising a training based on drawing, colour, texture
and shape.18 At the Royal College of Art (RCA), Madge Garland,
who was ex-editor of British Vogue, was appointed to set up a
fashion school to replace the existing Dress course in 1948. Her
contacts in the fashion industry provided the students with materials,
sponsorship and good introductions to the industry. Garland was
then succeeded by Ironside in 1956 who understood the need to
develop a fashion industry that catered to the needs of changing
customers that emerged from the post-war and baby boom. This
gave institutions like the RCA impetus to provide a sound training
in design which, in turn, would be of value to manufacturers.19
These educational pioneers understood that fashion needs to
validate itself and remove the prejudices against it as frivolous and,
worked hard for it to be accepted as a fine art subject, while still
relevant to the industry. From 1972 onwards all British art schools
could apply for degree status in fashion which gave fashion another
boost as a professional qualification and career.20 For Ong, his timely
arrival in London during the late 1960s saw him benefiting from
this unusual fashion training which had given rise to a new generation of fashion designers (for example, Mary Quant) that had
emerged before him.
Besides being taught couture tailoring, Ong also found the
teaching of mass production techniques in school extremely useful.
Ong explained, “[i]n couture we measure a lady’s body and then
draft a basic block of her shape and we use it as the base to create
the design. In mass production the lady is replaced with a dummy
and we follow the same process — here we are catering for a mass
ideal of say a lady of a size 10 body.”21 This exposure not only helped
Ong to understand the making of patterns for mass production
design work better, but he also applied it when he freelanced for
high street fashion houses, Jump and Mushroom, while still in
school. The experience of working with these companies taught
him that he had to understand the lifestyles of his clients to succeed
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
as a fashion designer in London. “It helped me to create designer
fashion with the understanding of the people whom I am designing
for that is, their ‘lifestyle’, which as a word was not used much
those days.”22
The Benny Ong Designer Label
Two years after graduating from St. Martin’s, Ong launched his own
label, Benny Ong Designer in 1975. Like many designers, creating
a brand name in their own names was the start of a long process
in order for their clothes to be seen as fashion. In short, clothes,
whether custom-made or ready-made, must go through the institutionalised system before they are labelled as fashion.23 Clothes need
approval and recognition in a particular social and organisational
context, and Ong needed to establish himself as a designer in the
British fashion system.
Figure 4 Ong’s early creations such as
this 1976 soft and feminine chiffon dress
established him as a popular evening wear
designer in London. Courtesy of Drapers
Record.
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
Before he launched his label, Ong had to take into consideration the series of changes in consumer needs as a result of the
rise of a new youth culture in the 1950s and 1960s. An economic
boom, profound social change and full employment gave rise to a
relatively affluent teenage market, to whom fashion clothing was
highly desirable.24 There were more teenagers, from 6.5% of the
population in 1956 to nearly 8% in 1964, and settled at approximately 7% in the late 1960s and early 1970s.25 The social attitudes
and consumer practices of this group of teenagers were very different
from their parents. They had a job and the money to spend as
they were not saving yet. They also did not want to look or dress
like their parents. Instead, they wanted a style that is a way of
life, style as the self, and yet also style as fun.26 In Britain, fashion
boutiques sprang up all over, beginning with Mary Quant’s Bazaar
in Chelsea, which created a fashion revolution with its short production runs of youthful ready-to-wear clothes which was a direct
opposite of the established formula for formal, structured and highly
accessorised styles favoured by their parents.27 In short, London
was becoming the centre of a vibrant youth culture where fashion
played a crucial role.
As youths began to develop their own culture and fashions,
haute couture seemed to have lost relevance. The number of clients
in London’s couture houses was declining and their customers
remained largely older women. Young wealthy women no longer had
the patience to undergo lengthy fittings necessary for the creation
of a custom-made garment. Instead, they chose more ephemeral,
ready-made, top level fashion boutique clothing for its innovative
style.28 Hence, by the end of the 1960s, many of London’s couture
houses had either closed or diversified into ready-to-wear, and
ceased trading in haute couture. At the same time, British high
fashion had split into two distinctive areas. The most exclusive haute
couturiers catered for the continued demand for stylish but never
outré daywear and luxurious evening gowns. Meanwhile, the more
iconoclastic designers, often trained in art schools, consolidated
their role within the British industry.29
Having witnessed the changes in environment in which fashion
organisations operate in London (the birth of boutiques and the
decline of couture houses), brought about by the fragmentation of
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
the contemporary societies and the birth of new types of consumers,
Ong had to choose a new strategy that would make his label commercially viable and readily accepted in the British fashion system
at the same time. He then decided that his Designer label would
cater to an older, sophisticated and affluent group of consumers in
London. This notion of Ong catering to a specific type of consumer
and their lifestyle was to feature prominently throughout his career
in London and will be discussed further later.
The decision to launch his career as an occasion wear designer
was a strategic move to be accepted into the British fashion system.
Ong explained, “In [the] UK, the lifestyle of the affluent has always
been centred around occasions and functions — the most exciting
and glamorous of all occasions is to be dressed in a gown!”30 De
la Haye pointed out that if one examines the few top names that
dominated British ready-to-wear fashion during the late 1960s and
early 1970s, notably Gina Fratini, Bill Gibb, Thea Porter, John Bates,
Ossie Clark and Zandra Rhodes, their works were about decorative textiles and a penchant for fantasy and escapism.31 This was
a trend that was also noted by British designer Bruce Oldfield:
“When I left college the fashion stars were Zandra Rhodes, Bill
Gibb, Gina Fratini, Yuki, John Bates and Jean Muir. Those six. And
with the sole exception of Jean Muir they all made fantasy clothes.
Crazy fashion was very popular at college.”32
An Asian Designer
Throughout his career in London, Ong never saw himself as an
‘Oriental’ designer. Instead, he defined himself as a “British designer
with an international appeal whose clothes transcend cultural, race
and geographical boundaries, selling in good places and shops all
over the world.”33
According to Edward Said, “Orientalism, is a Western style for
dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient.”34
It refers to a system of knowledge, which was created in the colonial
era and served to justify Western imperialism and dominion over
the Orient. As stated, the East is fundamentally different and inferior
to the West. The notion also renders the Orient timeless, exotic
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
and even backward. What the West perceives as the ‘East’ is simply
a constructed image based on ignorance. Orientalism can thus be
seen as an instrument used by the West to control and possess the
East during colonial times. Today, Orientalism has survived and still
appears in different forms in the modern world.35
Even though Ong denied using ethnicity as a strategy in his
career, there were references made by the press and buyers that
referred to him as an Asian designer during his early days as a fashion
designer. Lady Annie Lucas, a fashion coordinator at Selfridges
(1969–1980s), noted “being Asian, Ong stood apart from the other
British designers … he was young, exotic and charming.”36 This is
‘Western Orientalising’, which Kondo mentioned in his discussion
on Japanese designers in Paris, whereby the West looks at Japan
as “miniature, aesthetic, feminised, [and] exotic.”37 According to
Drapers Record (19 April 1975), it reported that “[i]n Paris, the
Japanese designers are causing a big stir, in London the pace for
Oriental design is also hotting up, there’s Yuki (last season’s New
Wave) and Benny Ong (New Wave now) ….”38 In Home & Gardens
(May 1981), “Far Eastern designers have been livening up Western
fashions for over a decade now: Yuki in London, Kenzo of Jap in
Paris, are names that spring instantly to mind. Benny Ong, a St
Martin’s Art school graduate originally from Singapore, is perhaps
less well known….”39
It was also during this time in the 1970s that Japanese designers
like Kansai Yamamoto, Issey Miyake and Kenzo and later in the
early 1980s, Rei Kawakubo of Comme des Garcons and Yohji
Yamamoto, were making their presence felt in Paris with their
unique designs that were seen as non-Western and challenging the
conventions of Western silhouette, and also the fact that they were
non-Western fashion outsiders.40 Just as the marginality of these
Japanese had become an asset in Paris41 , Singaporean-born Ong
was also seen to be part of this creative Oriental group even though
he was based in London. For example, in the fashion story (British
Vogue, January 1985) labelled ‘Tribal Rites — The Mark of the New
Beauty in Fashion’, Ong’s work was featured alongside Japanese
designers such as Rei Kawabuko and Yohji Yamamoto (Figure 5).
As Leshkowich and Jones comment, “not only does Asia emerge
as a timeliness, spiritual, and exotic alter to the West, but cultural,
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
Figure 5 Ong’s linen shift was featured alongside
other Japanese designers in Tribal Rites — The
Mark of the New Beauty in Fashion, which
portrayed him as an Asian designer. Courtesy of
Patrick Demarchelier © Vogue/The Condé Nast
Publications Ltd., January 1985.
historical, ethnic, and regional distinctions disappear into the undifferentiated category of ‘Asian style’. Asian becomes symbolically
domesticated, simply a trend to be consumed.”42 Kondo revealed that
international fashion commentary tends to group Asian designers
as Japanese designers on the basis of national essence rather than
on individual design achievement as is the usual case for European
and American designers.43 For many of these Japanese designers,
they do not desire be to be lumped together, nor to be seen as
designing out of culture. Fashion, should transcend nationality
(mukokuseki).44 Similarly, Ong was more comfortable with the label
of an international designer rather than assuming a group identity,
that is, an Asian designer, to which he did not feel a sense of
belonging.
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
In addition, Ong’s concept of his designs with a universal appeal
was rather similar to Issey Miyake’s claim on universality which
reproduces the contradictions animating Japanese identity formation from the 1970s.45 On one hand, Miyake’s appeal for universality
fuels the forces of consumer capitalism. ‘Universality’ means clothing
that will sell anywhere in the world, more specifically in Europe and
the United States. Claims for universality reveal desires for parity
with the West as a nation-state, as a capitalist power and as a cultural
producer. On the other hand, ‘universality’ reaches for recognition
outside essentialised Japanese identity which reflects Miyake’s desire
to move away from being marked racially and be recognised as a
‘designer’, rather than a ‘Japanese designer’.46
There was another dimension to the Western gaze that was
imposed on Ong; that is, he was being labelled a Japanese designer
when he is not. “Another Japanese designer, Benny Ong, has a
wonderfully wearable slip dress and matching jacket …. Versatility
does seem to be an Eastern speciality.”47 Not only does this undermine the distinctiveness of Ong’s works, it also reflects, as Kondo
argued, the Eurocentric and Orientalist nature of press coverage as
they showed their condescension and dismissal in a subtle way.48
It was mentioned earlier that Ong seemed to have engaged in
some form of self-Orientalising. Here, evidences are found in some
of his early works whereby he appropriated Chinese concepts that
were very much part of his lifestyle experience. For Ong’s 1980s
Spring/Summer collection, he named it the ‘Porcelain Collection’
based on the colours he used, mainly Ming blue, porcelain grey,
mandarin, white and ivory. Although the dresses did not carry
any ethnic prints or symbols, the name of the collection and the
colours used suggests that Ong was inspired by Chinese ceramics
(Figure 6).
A British Designer
There are however more evidences that support the conclusion
that Ong was perceived to be more of a British designer than
an Asian designer in London. In Singapore, Tom Rao, who was
the fashion editor of Her World between 1980 and 1988 recalled,
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
Figure 6 Works such as this
silk crepe de chine two-tone
dress (Ming blue and Mandarin)
with a matching jacket from
the 1980 Porcelain Collection
suggests that Ong took inspiration
from his ethnic background.
Courtesy of Benny Ong Archives.
“Benny Ong … was never a Singapore designer because he was
based in London. Benny Ong operated his business in London. And
in the fashion circle [in Singapore], he was considered a London
designer.”49 Brenda Seow, one of Ong’s customers in Singapore in
the 1980s, described his clothes as ‘a class above’ and the Benny Ong
label carried the connotation of an overseas European brand that
was sought after by successful Singaporean women in the 1980s.50
Fashion magazines in Britain played an important role in
projecting Ong as a British fashion designer. Kawamura stated that
fashion magazine editors who occupied key positions within the
fashion system, and as transmitters of taste, are responsible for
creating and conveying the image of the designers to the public.51
British Vogue, one of the few major fashion magazines that is said
to be crucial in this image-making had often presented Ong as one
of Britain’s top designers alongside Jean Muir, Bruce Oldfield and
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
Figure 7 Ong’s works featured as part of the ‘Modern British’ series in British
Vogue, February 1985. Courtesy of Eric Boman © Vogue/The Condé Nast
Publications Ltd.
Figure 8 Under the Cue column in British Vogue, Ong’s works were featured in
the ‘Looks British’ section, January 1983. Courtesy of Eric Boman © Vogue/The
Condé Nast Publications Ltd.
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
Jasper Conran, among others (Figures 7 & 8) — for example, in
“British Designers” (March 1980), “New British Dressing for Clear
Spring New Butterfly Silk Stripes” (February 1982), “Cue — Looks
British” (January 1983), “Spring is Modern British — New Classics
from the London Collections” (February 1985). In addition, a special
edition “Hoist the Flag” promotion launched by Vogue and Harrods
in August 1982 to celebrate British tradition featured Ong as one
of the top designers in the Harrods’s Designer room. A page in
the catalogue (Figure 9) reads “‘Harrods Hoist the Flag’ for British
designers. During our ‘Hoist the Flag’ promotion, all these names
will be featured in our Designer Room” (March 1981). Lucinda
Figure 9 ‘Harrods Hoist
the Flag’ Promotion whereby
Ong was featured as one of
the British designers whose
works were sold in Harrods,
British Vogue, August 1982.
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
Chambers, British Vogue Fashion Director, who had worked with
Ong on several occasions in the 1980s and 1990s, recalled “I don’t
think that we ever thought of Benny as an Asian designer in that
sense as he was so firmly part of the British fashion scene.”52 Rosalind
Woolfson, who was Shandwick’s senior PR consultant/director and
Ong’s publicist in the 1970s recounted, “Benny was part of a group
of British designers, he was never specially identified as anything
but a London-based designer, with an interesting heritage.”53 Ong
was also selected to represent Britain on various occasions. For
example, in 1978, he represented Britain in the Young Designer
Fashion Extravaganza in Milan organised by giant fibre conglomerate
SNIA VISCOSA.
Reasons for Being Recognised as a British Designer
There are a few factors that contributed to the definition of Ong
as a British designer in his early years in London. Unlike the
Japanese designers of the 1970s and 1980s who received their fashion
education in Japan and were given a group identity as Japanese
designers in Paris, Ong was able to assimilate himself into the British
fashion system quite easily. He received his fashion education in
London and after graduation, made London the base for his fashion
career and only returned to Singapore for holiday twice a year.
When he launched his own label in 1975, he chose to carve a name
for himself by creating fantasy occasion wear, for which British
designers were internationally renowned. Although he eventually
created another label, Benny Ong Sunday, a more casual and sporty
wear for the Singaporean market in 1980, Singapore remained a
secondary market to him till the 1990s.
The most important factor that helped Ong gained entry into
the British fashion system and consolidate his image as a British
designer was his participation in the ‘New Wave’ exhibition in
1973/74, the pre-runner to London Designers Collection (LDC).
For the first time, a small group of young designers including Ong,
got together to show their works to international buyers at the Ritz
Hotel with funding from the British Knitting and Clothing Export
Council (BKCEC) — the umbrella organisation for the British fashion
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
and clothing industry. According to Bruce Oldfield who participated
in the exhibition, the ‘New Wave’ exhibition sowed the seeds for
something bigger and very important for British fashion — getting
London fashion back on track and making the London Fashion
Week as exciting to visit as Paris for buyers.54 Previously designers
found it extremely difficult to attract buyers because of their negative image. Oldfield explained, “small designers that showed at the
BKCEC-held fashion exhibitions in the Grosvenor House Hotel or
in various exhibition halls were perceived as an intrinsic part of the
great rag trade. Stack them high, sell them cheap at that time.”55
Thus, when it was suggested that the designer level of the industry
should show alongside the mass market sector at Earls Court due to
a withdrawal of BKCEC’s funding for a show at Ritz the next year,
Annette Worsely-Taylor, the organiser of the show, decided to form
LDC so that the works of the designers would not be cheapened.56
Due to Ong’s participation in the ‘New Wave’ exhibition the
previous year, he was invited to become a member of the LDC by
Worsely-Taylor. According to Woolfson, “The LDC was very elitist
and exclusive”57 and by gaining entry and recognition into Britain’s
first formal trade organisation set up for young designers to show
their collections to international buyers, Ong had gained the stamp
of approval from the British fashion system. De la Haye noted that
the LDC became a powerful force in British fashion, providing
an information service for members, hosting receptions and producing a bi-annual catalogue.58 More importantly, as Lady Lucas
pointed out, membership to the LDC also provided Ong with a
“group identity which became very important for American buyers
who became very interested in evening wear done by British designers.”59 From then onwards, Ong participated in premier fashion
shows in London, Paris and New York, and presented his collections to top international buyers and press as one of Britain’s top
fashion designers.
Ong’s early experiences in London have shown that he was not
only seen as an Orientalised subject by the British fashion system,
he was also a participant of self-Orientalisation. However, these
were all eventually replaced by his image as a British designer in
London, a status which was accorded to him by the same fashion
system that had labelled him an Asian designer in the beginning.
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
Figure 10 Ong’s casual wear was given
a ‘healthy’ image when it was featured in
a joint promotion exercise organised by
British Vogue and Kellogg’s, June 1981.
Courtesy of Benny Ong Archives.
Figure 11 A loosely cut suit designed
by Ong advertised in the mail order
catalogue for Kingshill Diffusion mail
order, 1994. Courtesy of Benny Ong
Archives.
III. The Design Philosophy of Ong’s Works
Ong’s clothes have always being described by his customers as
“wearable”, “fluid”, “unpretentious” and “easily transformed from
day to night.” Woolfson, Ong’s publicist in the 1970s commented,
“[h]is clothes were always exquisitely made, with clean lines, lovely
fabrics and super colours. He preferred plain tones to patterns. His
clothes were classics with a strong twist, good lines and very skilfully put together.”60 Callan had written that Ong “designs clothes
that are pretty, graceful and quite often loosely cut.”61 Although
much has been spoken about Ong’s style, in actual fact, very little
has been written about his design philosophy. Thus this section
aims to examine the design principles behind Ong’s works. Besides
looking into the collection at the NMS, visual images of Ong’s works
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
Figure 12 A cocktail dress with fine
embroidery work on the collar by
Ong, 1988. Courtesy of Benny Ong
Archives.
Figure 13 A formal jade green long
sleeved top with matching pants in
silk, Woman’s Journal, November 1988.
Courtesy of Woman’s Journal.
from fashion and lifestyle magazines are also consulted to show
how these values were portrayed in magazines.
(A) The Minimalist
One of the most important concepts that Ong adhered to was to
keep to a minimalist design. “I design for the busy professional who
has lots to do and wants something easy and stylish, simple, no frills
and quality fabrics. I understand the fashion needs of a modern
women. Fashion being fickle, it is essential that I am able to pick out
the essence of that lifestyle, to pick out what are the classics in their
wardrobe ….” explained Ong.62 By the 1980s, women had numerous
options when it came to dressing up. Crane noted that social
classes were less homogenous, because they were fragmented into
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
a
b
c
Figure 14 A 1986 fitted skirt suit (figs. 14a and 14b) which is understated in
design except for the elaborate floral buttons (fig. 14c) on the jacket. National
Museum of Singapore collection, 2007-52574 and 2007-52575.
different but continually evolving lifestyles based on leisure activities, including consumption.63 Ong wanted to give his consumers
designs that were timeless. Hogg defined a classic piece of dress
as “equipped with quality, a pure design with perfect proportions,
free from any moods and extremes” and classic buying demands
an instinct for the best colour, material and cut.64 These qualities
seemed to coincide with Ong’s, who had always insisted that “a dress
must be simple but well cut in a good fabric and colour. You can
then rely on the accessories to set the mood.”65
Ong’s philosophy for clean simple designs could be demonstrated in the following examples. For the green avocado suit (Figure
14), Ong had kept to one colour with minimal details except for the
two intricately designed floral buttons (Figure 14c) on the jacket
which gives the suit a touch of femininity and its distinctive feature.
For contrast, the lapels are in white. The 1982 blue silk jacket
(Figure 15) is cut loosely. The collar is gathered so as to give it an
additional unique design quality, different from suits available in the
market. Similarly, the brown suit (Figure 16) has a loose silhouette
whilst the silk fabric gives it a soft and gentle look. Ong had chosen
a neutral colour for the coordinates which meant that the customer
could wear it with other coordinates. According to Hogg, “classic
clothes are versatile and do not impose on your character.”66
A testimony to Ong’s ability to create classic pieces was elaborated by Yip, his personal assistant. “Benny’s clients still keep the
clothes they bought because they are classic pieces. I know one of
them took out the shoulder pads from a 1980s jacket and is still
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
Figure 15 The ruffled collar of this
1982 blue jacket suit gives the otherwise
simple design a different interpretation.
Courtesy of Toscani © Vogue/The
Condé Nast Publications Ltd.
Figure 16 A 1994 fluid pants suit
from the Bene line. Courtesy of Benny
Ong Archives.
wearing it now.”67 Ong’s preference for minimalist classic designs
was similar to that of Jean Muir, one of the most influential British
designers since the 1970s. Muir’s dressmaking principle was that
“the design has to be made to wear, to fit, to be comfortable, to last,
to be attractive, to enhance and most of all to work on a body that
already exists.”68 The jersey dresses designed by Ong (Figures 17 &
18) were photographed in British Vogue as fluid and comfortable
pieces, thus suggesting similarities between the two designers.
However, Ong’s attempts to portray his designs as classic pieces
were not purely based on aesthetics alone — it was also a business
strategy. In an environment where consumers had an increasing
number of choices in fashion, it seemed wise to attract them to his
designs if they were marketed as classics that can withstand fashion
changes and thus, give his customers more value for money. Further
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
Figure 17 When Ong launched his collection of jersey dress in 1978, Harrods and later
Selfridges bought them. National Museum
of Singapore collection, 2007-51498.
Figure 18 Ong’s fluid silk jersey
dress as represented in British
Vogue, January 1979. Courtesy of
Benny Ong Archives.
analysis of these so-called classic pieces revealed that they can be
dated to a certain period. For example, Ong’s loosely cut jackets
(Figure 15) were favoured by women in the early 1980s and again
in the 1990s, while the tight fitting jackets that are fitted with
shoulder pads (Figure 14) can be attributed to the mid 1980s. Hence,
although Ong’s designs can be described as understated, the details
and shape of his clothes reveal a particular era’s trends.
(B) The Democrat
Another design principle that Ong stuck to over the years was to
design for all types of people. By the 1980s, lifestyle consumption
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
Figure 19 Ong’s jersey dresses
emphasised movement and cut
which were similar to Jean Muir’s
design principle. Courtesy of City
Art Gallery, 1980.
was the trend. It was characterised by small niche markets directed
towards an increasingly segmented market of consumers whose
identity (age, income bracket, taste etc.) is under constant scrutiny
by marketing personnel.69 People make choices that require the
continual assessment and evaluation of consumer goods and activities in light of their potential contributions to identities or images
they are attempting to project. As a result, Ong developed numerous
labels which included high-end and diffusion ranges for women with
different lifestyles and age groups. He even worked with producers
of mass market fashion such as Marks & Spencer and C&A in the
late 1980s.
i.
Diffusion Lines
Like many designers of the 1980s and 1990s, Ong did not just
concentrate on his expensive couture evening line, Benny Ong
Designer. In 1980, he launched two new labels aimed at consumers
with different lifestyles — Benny Ong Number 2 (which later became
Benny Ong International in 1982) and Sunday. The former was an
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
Figure 20 Silk vest and shorts from
the more casual SUNDAY label, British
Vogue, March 1983. Courtesy of Benny
Ong Archives.
Figure 21 Similar looking silk suits
from the Designer label (right) and
the more affordable International label
(left), 1981. Courtesy of Benny Ong
Archives.
offshoot of the Designer label (where pieces retail above £300) and
contained primarily occasion wear pieces made of silk but slightly
less expensive (costing between £75 to £150) than the Designer label.
Number 2 was referred to in fashion circles as “Benny Ong’s cheap
range,” that offers the sort of simple, chic, silk dressing to which
women of taste but not fortune can usually only aspire.70 Sunday,
a medium-priced, sporty cotton range, caters for Ong’s younger
customers and retails from £25 (Figure 20). Ong’s venture into
cheaper ranges provided an insight to the designer’s wish to design
for the masses. He explained, “Fashion is not for the privileged;
we are all privileged in one way or another. And the true patrons
of the arts in this century are not lords, ladies and kings; they are
the general masses and that’s how I want to use the skills that were
given to me.”71
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
By comparing two suits from Ong’s Designer and International
range that were featured in The Dorchester magazine, 1981 (Figure
21), it was almost impossible to tell the difference in quality between
the two labels. The tan silk crepe de chine suit with a wrap-over skirt
belonged to Ong’s designer collection and was priced at £120, while
the lavender blue silk suit of a similar design from his International
range was priced at £98. Despite the price difference, the quality
and design between both collections were hardly visible. To cut
costs, Ong went back to Singapore to produce his International
designs. But he stayed in Singapore for a month to ensure that the
quality and cut were up to his standard. This exercise demonstrated
that despite the price differences, Ong displayed a commitment in
achieving a high level of coherence in design and quality control for
his cheaper range.
In 1988 and 1994, Ong continued to expand his market by
launching two diffusion labels, Ongoing and Bene respectively. According to Ewing, diffusion lines are ready-to-wear clothes that are
30 to 50 per cent less than the main line ready-to-wear collections
and as their name implies, the purpose is to diffuse the fashion
designer’s look for mass consumption.72 Ong’s foray into diffusion
lines reflected the trend of the period. In 1988, Nichole Farhi started
Nichole Farhi Diversion for women. Bruce Oldfield began his with
I. Dewhurst (manufacturers to Marks & Spencer). Vivienne Westwood launched her first high street collection for a large retailer
in 1992.73 This development is significant as it shows that fashion
designers were aware of the diminished spending power of women
in the recession years of the early 1990s together with the realisation that they wanted quality and value for money.74
Ongoing, wholesaling between £45–90, carried day and occasion wear range in silk and cotton and was designed for “the professional woman who wants to dress in an international way.”75 The
Ongoing collection included elements which were already recognised
as hallmarks of Ong’s designs, for example, strong geometric
florals, dresses and suits, wide silk trousers, waisted jackets and an
emphasis on soft lines. For example, the black fitted suit with white
lapels (Figure 22) is reminiscent of the 1986 green suit from Ong’s
International Collection (Figure 14).
On the other hand, Bene, which carried more casual and office
clothes in linen and viscose, catered for the working lady who
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
Figure 22 A 1989 well tailored suit
from the Ongoing label reminiscent
of Ong’s previous designs of suits.
Courtesy of Benny Ong Archives.
was looking for a versatile, value-for-money daywear and weekend
wardrobe. The cheaper range of coordinates offered by Bene reflected the designer’s hopes to compete with the high street stores
which had dominated the market by the 1990s. Ong wanted to
capture the younger working class market by offering them affordable but quality clothes in soft lines and a range of colours (navy,
white, spice, grey, lemon) for which he was known. For example, the
silhouette of the blouses and trousers (Figures 23 & 24) are fluid
and simple. They are easy to match because of their neutral colours
and can be worn together or separately. The beige blouse is asymmetrical, a style that was regularly featured in Ong’s previous
works. Hence, Ong ensured that his secondary lines did not compromise on the quality and design which is associated to his label,
and this allowed him to reach out to women who wanted to own
simplified versions of his designer pieces in less expensive fabrics at
reasonable prices.
Thus, behind Ong’s ‘fashion democrat’ principle, there was a
greater plan to extend his market to younger working professionals,
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
Figure 23
Figure 24
Figures 23 and 24 Two examples of the mix-and-match coordinates offered by
the Bene collection, 1995. Courtesy of Benny Ong Archives.
in the hope that they would become customers of his more
sophisticated ranges in future. He understood that in order to be
commercially viable, he had to think long term.
ii. Collaboration with magazines
According to Ewing, Grumbach had shown that in 1970, designers
like Ungaro and Saint Laurent had collaborated with Elle magazine which allowed readers to obtain couturier clothes at low
prices.76 Similarly, Ong created exclusive dress patterns and clothes
for readers at various women’s magazines like Harper’s & Queen,
Home and Gardens and Woman’s Journal in the 1980s. For example,
in the ‘Your Designer Dress’ section in Woman and Home (1983),
Ong developed a designer dress pattern of a feminine drop-waist
dress for readers at only £2.50 (Figure 25). Ong also collaborated
with Woman’s Journal by offering readers a chance to buy his signature jackets, flare trousers and a classic top at only £60 each in
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
Figure 25 A designer dress pattern created by Ong for readers of Woman and
Home, 1983, which allowed him to reach out to the public. Courtesy of Benny
Ong Archives.
‘Benny Ong designs for you’ (Figure 26). Once again, the jackets on
offer were similar in style, cut and fabric to the ones Ong would
sell in his Designer or diffusion range.
By working with popular fashion and lifestyle magazines which
are cultural intermediaries that promote popular culture, Ong’s
designer works were consumed by readers who might not necessarily
be consumers of high fashion.
iii. Mail Order Business
Featherstone argues that with mass fashion, there is now no single
lifestyle, but rather to cater and expand the range of styles and
lifestyles available to audiences and consumers.77 Similarly, Ong
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
Figure 26 The Benny Ong special offer featured in Woman’s Journal, April 1989,
offered its readers an opportunity to own a piece of Ong’s designs at a more
affordable price. Courtesy of Benny Ong Archives.
chose to become a producer of both high fashion and mass fashion
without compromising his designs and quality. An example of
Ong’s commitment to designing quality pieces to the masses is
demonstrated by the works he produced for the mail order business
in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 1988, Ong, along with three
other British fashion designers, Jasper Conran, Roland Klein and
Mary Quant, were commissioned by Kays of Worcester to create
designs bearing their signature styles at a fraction of the usual
shop price for their customers.78 All four designers were given
carte blanche to design whatever they wanted to make — with
no restrictions on fabric, manufacturing systems or price.79 For
Kays, the appointment of these established designers helped to
elevate the status of mail order clothing to a more up-market image
which would appeal to the 1980s brand conscious customers. For
the designers, the idea of having their designs produced at large
quantities and made available to the masses at a low cost without
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
Figure 27
Figure 28
Figures 27 and 28 A group of dresses that was created for Kays catalogue bore
the trademark designs of Ong, 1988. Courtesy of Benny Ong Archives.
compromising on quality was an extremely attractive one. As Jasper
Conran pointed out, “I am an ideas man who creates clothes, but on
my own I can only make up a limited number of new designs at a
price most women cannot afford. Mass production for the catalogue
market makes it possible.”80 Michael Barber, fashion director of
G.U.S — parent company of Kays — says, “[w]hen Kays says best
seller it is talking in huge quantities. Sales of 10,000 of a jacket like
that would be disappointing.”81 For Ong, bulk production brings
the prices of his clothes down meaning that more women would
be able to afford his designer pieces. In a collaboration that ran for
two seasons, Ong created fluid dresses and asymmetrical tunics
and trousers that were typical of his minimalist style. Another
characteristic of an Ong design is the use of colour as is evident in
this collection where he had the clothes made in bold colours —
black, scarlet and royal blue (Figures 27 & 28). The colours used and
the style developed for the Kays catalogue were reminiscent of the
dresses that Ong created in 1980 for his International label (Figure
6). Although it is likely that the carte blanche policy was a marketing
ploy employed by mail order companies to entice consumers, the
examples above demonstrated that Ong was serious and sincere in
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
his attempts to produce good quality clothes that would resonate
with potential customers.
(C) The Decorator
It was discussed earlier that Ong established himself as an evening
wear designer at the start of his career in 1975. His first collection
comprised hand-painted silk chiffons and jerseys dresses at expensive designer prices. Two years later, his pieces were selling at
premier stores in London, such as Harrods and Selfridges and later
at Saks Fifth Avenue, Nieman Marcus etc. in America, as well as
markets in the Middle East. Woolfson, Ong’s publicist, observed
that one reason for Ong’s success was that when appropriate, he
created more ‘decorative’ clothes to attract the Middle Eastern
market which was very important to London at that time. She added,
“[t]hose ‘decorative’ clothes were always created with Benny’s innate
good taste and elegance.”82 Hence, this last section will discuss
another fundamental design philosophy upheld by Ong, that is, to
design decorative clothes of good taste based on high standards of
workmanship, by examining a group of highly decorative evening
wear which Ong donated to the NMS in 2006.
The 1980s have been stereotyped as a ‘decade of greed’ and
‘excess’83 — effective global tax reforms and privatisation polices
in America, Europe and Asia saw the rise of a young urban middle
class (the ‘yuppies’). In the UK, the economy boomed under the
leadership of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and by 1986, there
was twice the number of millionaires in the UK than in 1980.84 In
America, the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 heralded a new
decade, where making money and dressing well went hand in
hand.85 Armed with increased disposable income, this group of
brand-conscious yuppies flaunted their wealth by consuming
expensive products including ‘designer’ clothing. In both countries,
formal events became increasingly popular, so did the display of
opulent evening wear.86 Hence, there was a demand for glamorous
evening wear by this group of consumers.
Ong’s evening dresses were extremely popular amongst the
rich upper and middle class women. He appropriated elements
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
Figure 29
Figure 30
Figures 29 and 30 These two colourful cocktail dresses from Ong’s 1989 Spring
Summer collection were inspired by the Romantic Movement of the 18th and
19th centuries. National Museum of Singapore collection, 2007-52554 and 200752549.
from art history and incorporated them into his designs, providing
his customers with an image of a kind of ‘refined’ taste they so
desired to project. As Bourdieu pointed out, one displays knowledge
in consuming, rather than just wealth. “What is at stake is indeed
‘personality’, i.e. the quality of the person which is affirmed in the
capacity to appropriate an object of quality. The objects endowed
with the greatest distinct power are those which most clearly attest
the quality of the appropriation, and therefore the quality of the
owner.”87
To avoid the pitfalls of ostentatious display as some of the other
contemporaries designers had resorted to in the 1980s, Ong always
made sure that his decorative dresses were done in good taste and
of connoisseurship quality in terms of design and workmanship.
For example, in his 1988–1989 collection of silk taffeta dresses
(Figures 29 & 30), he took inspiration from 18th- and 19th-century
art movements such as Neoclassicism and Romanticism and created
a romantic collection. To make his dresses stand out, Ong kept
to one bold colour and relied on details to ‘decorate’ his dresses.
For example, the vivid colour of the blue off-shoulder dress is a
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
Figure 31
Figure 31a
Figure 31 ‘Changing of Guard’ evening dress from the National Museum of
Singapore collection, 2007-52542 and the dress (fig. 31a) on a model, Drapers’
Record, 27 February 1988.
kingfisher blue. Its deep décolleté is emphasised by the rosette while
the revelation of the shoulders and neck is inspired by the Romantic
code of dressing. The sunflower dress is characterised by its gathered
bodice which gives the dress a fitted form. The rosette-like sleeves
gives the otherwise understated dress the fancy element it required
as a cocktail dress. Both dresses have short puff ball skirts which
were extremely popular during the late 1980s. Ong explained,
“Fashion is about the times you are living in. But it’s also about
learning from other periods.”88 In fact, Entwistle had stated that this
mix of nostalgia, built upon tradition, imagination and innovation,
is what British fashion design has become world-renowned for.89
Another example of Ong’s adaptation of tradition into his
modern creations is a two-piece silk taffeta and velvet evening
dress, named the ‘Changing of the Guard’, whereby he appropriated
the look of the uniforms worn by the guards of Buckingham Palace
(Figure 31). However, Ong’s interpretation is a softer and more
feminine version as portrayed in Drapers Record (Figure 31a). The
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
Figure 32 The highlights of this
1989 cocktail dress are its rosette
sleeves and embroidery work.
National Museum of Singapore
collection, 2007-52547.
Figure 32a Close-up of the sleeves
showing the intricate embroidery work.
dress has a dramatic train and is lined with layers of petticoats. The
nipped-in waist accentuates the figure of the model while her soft
shoulders are exposed. The velvet buttons and the tassel detailing
on the pockets give the dress a military look. The piled-up hair and
the slightly exaggerated pose of the model gives the dress an air of
elegance and femininity. The image is in sepia, which suggests the
historical origins of its original source of inspiration.
Ong was insistent that his ornate evening dresses were a
showcase of his haute couture workmanship. As Wilson had pointed
out, haute couture dresses emphasised not just the originality of
design and cut, but more importantly, the exquisite trimmings of
all kinds which alone differentiated dresses that would otherwise
have been almost identical.90 Hence, Ong’s evening dresses often
displayed a penchant for details and embellishments. The rosette,
for example, an essential decorative element for 1980s Romantic
dresses, was hand-made and decorated with beads and embroidered
with flowers and leaves using crimson, gold and red threads on the
black cocktail dress (Figure 32). The inside of these evening gowns
also revealed the presence of boning structures that were inserted
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
Figure 33 The tri-coloured short
bustier dress, Spring/Summer 1989.
National Museum of Singapore
collection, 2007-52581.
painstakingly to give the wearers the silhouette and support they
required. Ong was also good at using the techniques of ruching
and gathering in his dresses. For example, the form fitting silhouette
of the tri-coloured (red, black and yellow) short bustier dress
(Figure 33) is enhanced by the use of gathers on the bodice,
giving it additional texture and a three-dimensional effect, while the
asymmetrical neckline — the dress’s design statement — is carried
over to the waistline.
It is also not usual for Ong to take on the role of an artist as
seen in seen in his 1989 Spring/Summer collection of romantic red
and black silk taffetas evening dresses whereby he painted blooming
flowers onto the sleeves and bodices of the dresses. While the puffed
sleeves were reminiscent of the gigot or the leg of mutton sleeves
that were introduced during the 1820s Romantic Era, the layers
of netting revealed under the skirt gives the dress volume and a
flamenco look that was extremely popular in the late 1980s.
Ong also collaborated with other artists and craftsmen to produce dresses of marked workmanship and exclusivity. For example,
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
Figure 34
Figure 35
Figures 34 and 35 Silk taffeta dresses with Ong’s trademark of hand-painted
flowers and a close up (fig. 35) of the flowers from Ong’s 1989 Spring/Summer
collection. National Museum of Singapore collection, 2007-52543 and 200752561.
he worked with Eng Tow (a Singaporean textile designer who was
based in London in the 1970s), who hand-painted orchids on a
collection of crepe chiffon dresses. Ong also commissioned a group
of embroiders from Bombay, India, who had previously worked
with French fashion designer, Christian Lacroix. The result of this
collaboration was two evening dresses (Figure 36) that had black
sequins sewn all over in a fleur de lis pattern, which was a superb
display of craftsmanship.
Another display of quality that defined Ong’s opulent evening
dresses was the use of luxurious fabrics such as silk and velvet. Ong
had built up a reputation for using silk since the beginning of his
career and was invited to participate in several silk shows, including
those organised by the European Silk Commission in the 1970s and
1980s. The use of such soft, lustrous fabrics not only meant that the
wearer could indulge in the tactile pleasure of expensive fabrics next
to the skin, it also allowed her to project the distinguished status
she sought in formal events. The luxurious image of Ong’s evening
dresses was also portrayed in fashion magazines. In the May 1987
issue of Woman’s Journal, the model was shown wearing a £5,000
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
Figure 36
Figure 36a
Figure 36 The black and white empire line dress is heavily embroidered with
sequins all over while the intricate embroidery work is shown in a close up shot
(Fig. 36a), Autumn/Winter collection, 1988. National Museum of Singapore
collection, 2007-52557.
Chaumet diamond brooch and a dress by Ong (Figure 37). The
stole collar of the little black dress (Figure 38) is made of velvet and
layered with spotted net. The bodice is decorated with double row
buttons and cording while the waistline is a soft U-shape. The design
is typical of Ong’s design — understated but with a penchant for
details. This image could be interpreted by readers that the value of
Ong’s dress is equivalent to that of the luxurious jewellery brand.
All the above features meant that it would be difficult for others
to copy or mass produce the dresses that Ong produced. Crane
noted that in luxury design collections, it is generally often difficult to extract specific details to copy on a mass basis.91 They are
marketed to clienteles with distinct lifestyles within the upper
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
Figure 37 The image of a model
wearing the Chaumet diamond
jewellery and Ong’s little black
velvet dress, May 1987, Woman’s
Journal.
Figure 38 The little black dress that was
worn by the model in Fig. 37, Autumn/
Winter collection, 1988, National Museum
of Singapore collection, 2007-52568.
and upper middle class who appreciate clothing that is not easily
interpreted by the average person.92 Thus, women understood
that owning one of Ong’s decorative dresses would give them the
connoisseurship status they desired.
On the whole, Ong was able to apply his design philosophy quite
successfully across the different labels he had developed over the
years. His minimalist designs appealed to consumers who wanted
simple but value for money quality pieces that would last despite
changes in fashion. By providing consistent design and quality
clothes with the launch of his secondary labels and collaborating
with producers of mass fashion, Ong reached out to both the professional and younger market who wanted to own designer pieces
made by him at more affordable prices, while the affluent ladies who
wanted to be identified as connoisseurs of art and good taste at the
right occasion, continued to invest in Ong’s expensive decorative
dresses. As Giddens pointed out, the variety of choices in lifestyles
available in contemporary society liberated the individual from
tradition and enables her to make choices that create a meaningful
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
self-identity.93 Ong’s ability to provide his customers with a variety
of choices in fashionable clothing so that they could utilise them to
articulate the identity they wanted at different occasions, is probably
one of the major factors for his success in London.
IV. Conclusion
As stated in the beginning, the main goal of this article is to build
up a more extensive and comprehensive knowledge of Ong and his
works, as well as explain the reasons for his success in London. This
is completed by analysing press cuttings, journal articles, visuals
from several magazines, his collection of dresses at the NMS, and
the oral history accounts and email interviews of his customers and
people with whom he worked.
Contrary to the general assumption that Ong is a British designer who embraced Western aesthetics and is completely assimilated into the fashion system in London, the first section unveiled
that he was engaged in some form of self-Orientalising during the
early years of his career. Ong was fond of using Asian concepts from
his own heritage, for example, colours and motifs, in his collections.
He was also Orientalised under the Western gaze by both press
and magazines when he first launched his label. Ong’s works were
featured in fashion magazines that carried an Asian or exotic theme.
Press reports also showed that he was labelled a Japanese designer
by mistake. Hence, even though Ong insisted that he did not
emphasise his Asian identity nor did he market himself as one, there
are traces of evidence in his works that suggest that he was engaged
in self-Orientalisation. However, Ong’s Asian identity was quickly
subsumed and superceded by his reputation as a British designer
when he became a member of the LDC in 1975. His position as a
top British designer was further consolidated by magazines such as
British Vogue which is known for promoting local designers.
In the second section, his design philosophy was discussed.
They were: keep designs minimalistic, fashion should be for the
public and evening gowns have to be of connoisseurship quality.
His works from the museum collection and those featured in the
fashion magazines showed that Ong’s designs were indeed clean and
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
simple, with an emphasis on fabric, cut and colour. However, they
were not always classics even though they were portrayed as such
by Ong and the fashion magazines. This was a marketing strategy
employed by Ong who knew that by offering consumers designs
that would last, it would attract them to ‘invest’ in his upper and
middle range lines. Magazines continued to reinforce this image by
labelling his works as ‘classic’, ‘chic’ and ‘stylish’ and readers began
to associate him as a producer of classic designs even though they
might not always be.
Another discovery that was made was that Ong was not just a
producer of high fashion as he was generally known to be, but that
he also participated in the production of mass fashion. Although
Ong’s participation in mass fashion was attributed to his design
philosophy that “fashion has to make sense to the public,”94 it also
revealed the shrewd businessman in him. Ong understood that by
developing secondary labels for women with different lifestyles and
age groups, and by collaborating with mail order companies, he was
able to extend his market, attract new customers and eventually
convert them into his long-term supporters. Ong elaborated, “Today,
there are many choices. Ideally, you hope to have customers who feel
as you do and who always come back to you. As your style evolves,
the customer will evolve with you.”95 However, it is maintained that
Ong was sincere in his pursuit of delivering quality works and his
trademarks in his designs for both high and mass fashion, regardless
of the price differences.
Finally, the study also revealed that women found Ong’s clothes
appealing because his versatile but quality guaranteed ranges
allowed them to express their constantly evolving identity based on
their lifestyles. While Ong’s decorative but tasteful evening gowns
were worn by those who wanted to project themselves as elegant,
helping to distinguish them from the others who wore ostentatious
gowns, women who wanted to present a professional image in their
workplace opted for his understated suits. In short, Ong was able to
cater to consumers with varied lifestyles and needs which possibly
explains why he was so successful in London. It also challenged the
notion that Ong was only famous for his evening wear as shown by
the popularity of his professional and casual lines.
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
Acknowledgements
This article is based on research for my Masters dissertation Benny
Ong: 21 Years in the British Fashion Industry (1975–1996) submitted in December 2008. I would like to thank the National Heritage
Board of Singapore for granting me a scholarship. My thanks goes
to my course director, Dr. Becky Conekin and my supervisor,
Professor Rebecca Arnold for their patience, time and advice. This
study could not have happened without the support, cooperation
and help of Benny Ong and a substantial number of people who
knew him. I would particularly like to thank Lucinda Chambers,
Serene Liok, Lady Annie Lucas, Brenda Seow, Tom Rao, Eng Tow,
Catherine Yip and Rosalind Woolfson for taking time off to respond
to my interviews. Thanks also to the Library staff, in particular
Katherine Baird at the LCF Archives; Beatrice Behlen at the Museum
of London; Daniel Milford-Cottam and Louisa Collins at the V&A
Museum and the team at British Vogue Archives, London.
NOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
D. Griffiths, “Designer Shows Business Flair,” Drapers Record, 27 August
1988, p. 26.
L. Seah, “High and Loe points of Celia’s Rivals,” The Straits Times, 11 July
2002, p. 7.
Tom Rao, email interview with author, 13 June 2008.
Georgina O’Hara Callan, The Thames and Hudson Dictionary of Fashion
and Fashion Designers (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1998), p. 173.
Edward W. Said, Orientalism (London: Penguin, 1978), p. 5.
Sandra Niessen, Ann Marie Leshkowich and Carla Jones, ed., Re-Orienting
Fashion: the Globalization of Asian Dress (Oxford: Berg, 2003), p. 285.
Wessie Ling, “Paris and the Designers — Processes of Engagement of Oriental
Designers in the Fashion Capital,” in IFFTI Annual Conference Proceedings,
ed. Brian Leishman (Tokyo: Bunka Women’s University, 2005), p. 29.
Niessen, Leshkowich, and Jones, op. cit., p. 39.
Ling, op. cit., p. 39.
A. Chia, “Weaving in his Take on Life,” The Straits Times, 19 November 2007,
p. 6.
Ibid.
Amy De la Haye, ed., The Cutting Edge: 50 Years of British fashion 1947–1997
(London: V&A Publications, 1997), p. 19.
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
Christopher Breward, Edwina Ehrman and Caroline Evans, oyager.arts.ac.
uk/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=203384”London Look: Fashion from Street
to Catwalk (New Haven, Conn; London: Yale University, 2004), p. 117.
S. Davis, “Benny and the Jet-setters,” Expressions, March 1995, p. 31.
Ibid.
V. Johnstone, “An Ambassador of Fashion,” The Straits Times, 26 May 1993,
p. 10.
Angela McRobbie, British Fashion Design: Rag Trade or Image Industry?
(London: Routledge, 1998), p. 24.
E. White, The Fashion Year. Vol. 2 (London: Zomba Books, 1984), p. 91.
McRobbie, op. cit., p. 27.
De la Haye, op. cit., p. 20.
Benny Ong, email interview with author, 25 June 2008.
Ong, email interview with author, 19 June 2008.
Yuniya Kawamura, The Japanese Revolution in Paris Fashion (Oxford: Berg,
2004), p. 85.
De la Haye, op. cit., p. 20.
Elizabeth Wilson and Lou Taylor, Through the Looking Glass: A History of
Dress from 1860 to the Present Day (BBC Publications, 1989), p. 158.
Elizabeth Wilson, Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity (London: I.B.
Tauris, 2003), p. 178.
De la Haye, op. cit., p. 20.
Valerie Steele, Paris Fashion: A Cultural History (Oxford: Berg, 1999),
p. 277.
De la Haye, op. cit., p. 23.
Ong, email interview with author, 25 June 2008.
De la Haye, op. cit., p. 28.
Bruce Oldfield and Georgina Howell, Bruce Oldfield’s Season (London: Pan
Books, 1987), p. 26.
Ong, email interview with author, 16 September 2008.
Said, op. cit., p. 3.
S.P. Huang, “Who is Orientalising the Orient? A Case Study of Shiatzy
Chen” (MA diss., London College of Fashion, 2007), p. 12.
Annie Lucas, interview with author, 7 June 2007.
Dorinne K. Kondo, About Face: Performing Race in Fashion and Theater
(New York; London: Routledge, 1997), p. 57.
“On the Crest of a Wave,” Drapers Record, 19 April 1975, p. 68.
Ibid.
Kawamura, op. cit., p. 95.
Ibid.
Niessen, Leshkowich, and Jones, op. cit., p. 283.
Kondo, op. cit., p. 57.
Ibid., p. 60.
Ibid., p. 61.
Kondo, op. cit., p. 61.
 / The Heritage Journal
Chung May Khuen
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
A. Chubb, “Getting it right, Wrong way out,” Daily Mail, 10 February 1981,
p. 5.
Kondo, op. cit., p. 61.
Rao, email interview with the author, 13 June 2008.
Brenda Seow, interview with author, 19 June 2007.
Kawamura, op. cit., p. 69.
Lucinda Chambers, email interview with author, 13 October 2008.
Rosalind Woolfson, email interview with author, 14 October 2008.
Bruce Oldfield, Rootless: An Autobiography (London: Arrow, 2005), p. 173.
Ibid., p. 170.
De la Haye, op. cit., p. 28.
Woolfson, email interview with author, 14 October 2008.
De la Haye, op. cit., p. 28.
Lucas, interview with author, 19 June 2008.
Woolfson, email interview with author, 15 Oct 2008.
Callan, op. cit., p. 173.
S.A. Latiff, “Classics, with a Twist,” Singapore, May–June 1995, p. 31.
Diana Crane, Fashion and its Social Agendas: Class, Gender, and Identity in
Clothing (London: University of Chicago Press, 2000), p. 10.
M. Hogg, More Dash than Cash (London: Hutchinson, 1982), p. 49.
G. Ranson, “Benny’s Best,” The Sunday Telegraph, 26 April 1981, p. 21.
Hogg, op. cit., p. 56.
Catherine Yip, interview with author, 1 June 2008.
City Art Gallery, Jean Muir (Leeds, 1980), p. 28.
Joanne Entwistle, The Fashioned Body (Cambridge: Polity, 2000), p. 225.
J. Bates, “A Seasonal Round-Up,” Woman’s Post, 20 October 1980, p. 4.
Davis, “Benny and the Jet-setters,” Expressions, p. 31.
Elizabeth Ewing, History of Twentieth Century Fashion (London: Batsford,
2001), p. 263.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Griffiths, “Designer Shows Business Flair,” Drapers Record, p. 26.
Ewing, op. cit., p. 263.
Mike Featherstone, Consumer Culture and Postmodernism (London: Sage,
1991), p. 26.
N. Jeal, “OKAY,” The Observer, 15 May 1988, p. 14.
L. Van der Post, “Classics by Catalogue,” Financial Times, 14 May 1988,
p. 12.
Jeal., “OKAY,” The Observer, p. 14.
K. Phillips, “Now Kay’s Big Four Join the Catalogue War,” The Mail on Sunday,
15 May 1988, p. 26.
Woolfson, email interview with author, 15 October 2008.
Valerie Steele, Fifty Years of Fashion: New Look to Now (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1997), p. 18.
Ewing, op. cit., p. 278.
The Heritage Journal / 
Benny Ong
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
Ibid., p. 277.
Ibid., p. 279.
Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste
(London: Routledge, 1996), p. 281.
X.Y. Hong, “Retro Perspective,” The Straits Times, 13 September 2007,
p. 19.
Entwistle, op. cit., p. 224.
Elizabeth Wilson, Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity (London: I.B.
Tauris, 2003), p. 88.
Crane, op. cit., p. 162.
Ibid.
Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self Identity (Cambridge: Polity Press,
1991), p. 154.
G. Liu, “A Lady’s Man,” Singapore Vogue, April 1995, p. 25.
Liu, op. cit., p. 25.
 / The Heritage Journal