THERE is nothing final about the finals of the Mrs Singapore pageant last month.

At least 10 of the 38 contestants were upset at the way the winners were picked. Accusations are flying thick.

We unravel the arguments and speak to three of them as well as the organiser, Ms Tracy Lee, the events director of ERM Marketing.

Were titles bought?

CONTESTANTS: Those who won titles apparently happened to be the biggest spenders in the run-up to the 20 Jul pageant finals. They splurged on the most number of tables at the finals and advertisements in the programme booklet.

There was an online voting round - in which a minimum of 10 votes cost $3 - to decide the Mrs Internet Popularity winner, who automatically advanced to the pageant finals.

And the contestant who walked away with five titles, including Mrs Singapore Globe 2008, had booked six tables, garnered 17,710 votes, and placed eight advertisements.

ORGANISER: The titles had nothing to do with the amount contestants spent on the pageant.

The judges were not told how many tables or advertisements the contestants paid for or of the online voting results. They judged the ladies as they were.

Purchasing of dinner tables, advertising in the programme booklet and online voting are of (the contestants') own free will.

It was made known that it was not compulsory from the very start.

There was a panel of 10 judges and they interviewed the ladies during a pre-judging session to select the top 12 contestants a week before the grand finals.

Sheer coincidence?

REPORTER: So are you saying it was a coincidence that the title winners spent the most?

ORGANISER: Only one lady spent more than the others. She is a businesswoman and has business contacts who bought the tables and her husband was supportive too. We see no harm in it if she gets support.

The other winners were just average spenders who paid for one table or a few advertisements.

Why no discussion?

CONTESTANTS: We did not see the panel of judges deliberating during the finals before the winners were announced.

ORGANISER: Even at the Miss Universe and Miss World pageants, the judges do not leave their seats to deliberate or discuss. What they put on the score sheets is final.

We took the final score sheets and added them up. The highest scoring contestant was the winner.

Title bought?

CONTESTANTS: Three contestants were awarded the Mrs Community Ambassador title for placing the most advertisements.

We thought the title was based on the amount of community work done, not the number of advertisements placed.

We were not told the requirements for many of the awards.

ORGANISER: The winner was the one who was able to secure the highest number of advertisements for the programme booklet. This was made known to the ladies in black and white beforehand.

The money collected will go to a children's Christmas party with presents and a Chinese New Year lunch where we also give out ang pows.

These events are the title holders' community projects as they need to submit a scrap book of the events for international pageants.

Sore losers?

REPORTER: Would the complainants have raised similar objections if they had won titles.

CONTESTANTS: We are not being sore losers.

All the title holders had helped the pageant organisers profit in some way.

We don't hold it against the ladies who won. They are all great people, and we had a good time together.

What about winning hubby?

CONTESTANTS: The Most Supportive Husband award did not go to the most deserving man.

It went to the husband of the contestant who had spent the most money (who is also the pageant winner).

But the husband who attended all the rehearsals with his wife did not win. We never saw the winner's husband turn up for any rehearsal.

ORGANISER: The winning husband attended most of her events and even submitted her materials to our office for her.

This article was first published in The New Paper on Aug 18, 2008.