2006-12-12
Singapore’s Cultural Policy
Like many major government decisions in Singapore, the city-states national cultural policy is informed by economic rationale. To be sure, Singapore did not have a cohesive or coherent national cultural policy before the late 1980s. Prior to this, during the early years of independence, the arts and cultural industry ranked low on the list of national concerns that included high unemployment, severe housing shortage and economic survival.
The arts and culture then was deployed primarily by the state as an ideological tool to reinforce the discourses of multiculturalism and racial harmony among the three main ethnic groups Chinese, Malays and Indians. To this purpose it was commonplace for schools and public institutions to use the arts as opportunity for inter-ethnic interaction and for symbolic displays of multiculturalism through the showcasing of traditional ethnic dances alongside each other. The distribution of state funds for arts groups was also ad hoc, dispensed as the Project Grant by the then Ministry of Culture, without any long-term view to nurture the relationship between arts practitioners and the state.
Singapores arts and culture industry was re-examined by the government after the 1985 economic recession. In the attempt to identify new industries with high growth potential, the arts and culture was recognised as more than an ideological state channel but also a potent tourist draw. The late 1980s and early 1990s also saw the convergence of several factors. Firstly, in order to re-invent the city-states economic model from low-end to high-end manufacturing, the Global City for the Arts project was launched to inject the island with greater cultural and entertainment exuberance for the dual purpose of attracting skilled foreign labour and retaining skilled Singaporeans. Secondly, by the early 1990s, the local theatre community had matured and was led largely by young English-educated Singaporeans who were constantly pushing the boundaries of censorship. More crucially, this burgeoning theatre industry was supported by the broadening Singapore middle class who now possessed the disposal income to consume leisure activities and the desire to reflect on home-made stories and narratives. Thirdly, Goh Chok Tongs succession as prime minister in 1990 resulted in the kinder, gentler society slogan, presumably to distinguish his administration from the more authoritarian Lee Kuan Yew. This political handover fuelled optimistic hopes of political and cultural liberalisation.
These three factors led to several changes in the arts and cultural scene during the 1990s. The 1992 Censorship Review Committee published several recommendations to liberalise the arts and cultural industry. With regards to theatre, it mooted a classification system, akin to that for cinemas. Another recommendation was that theatre companies with good track records need no longer send in their scripts for vetting by Public Entertainment Licensing Unit (PELU) officers, though public entertainment licences from the Singapore Police Force still needed to be applied for. Over the years these recommendations have been refined and state funding has increased. The National Arts Council (NAC), the primary cultural state institute, has expanded the funding schemes to include Project Grants, Annual Grants and 2-Year Major Grants in order to meet the objective of reaching out to as many arts groups as possible, while nurturing those with the potential to tour the international arts circuit.
Singapores cultural policy has evolved since the late 1980s. To be sure, it is still used as a means to disseminate state discourses. However, it has developed many more facets. The first is its arts appreciation agendum. To this purpose the NAC has sponsored arts education programmes and served as an administrative bridge to bring arts groups to local schools. Local museums and galleries have been systematically upgraded in the attempt to make arts consumption a staple in the Singaporean entertainment diet. The second facet of Singapores cultural policy is the promotion of arts and culture as marker of a sophisticated and mature society. The proliferation and mass consumption of arts and culture, to the governments mind, will engender a civic minded polity. This initiative is tied to re-branding the city-state to attract foreign capital and talent to the island to live, work and play. Thirdly, the arts and culture is recognised by the government as source of creativity, innovation and solutions to challenges within the knowledge-based economy. Keen to develop the creative industries, the government has encouraged infrastructural bridging between arts, design and multimedia organisations in order to produce better designed and more sophisticated information technological products to compete in the global market.
Lastly, it is also useful to see Singapores cultural policy as a particular distribution of resources, and the interests that are fulfilled with this pattern of resource distribution. While the Global City for the Arts project has pressured the Singapore state into shedding some of its authoritarian practices to conform to international norms, the logic of neo-capitalism and market demands have led to certain arts groups with the requisite cultural capital to attract tourists and cosmopolitan consumers benefiting more from the countrys cultural policies than others. The Singapore governments cultural policy, specifically designed to reconstruct the city-state as a global city, has resulted in exacerbating the economic disparity between arts groups along ethnic and linguistic lines. Contemporary English-language theatre companies for example, are located in the higher strata of fund distribution while the less well-attended ethnic theatre companies are located in the lower strata. In short, Singapores cultural policy, primarily driven by economic impulses, has adopted the logic of globalisation to accentuate local inequalities.
Singapores arts and culture industry was re-examined by the government after the 1985 economic recession. In the attempt to identify new industries with high growth potential, the arts and culture was recognised as more than an ideological state channel but also a potent tourist draw. The late 1980s and early 1990s also saw the convergence of several factors. Firstly, in order to re-invent the city-states economic model from low-end to high-end manufacturing, the Global City for the Arts project was launched to inject the island with greater cultural and entertainment exuberance for the dual purpose of attracting skilled foreign labour and retaining skilled Singaporeans. Secondly, by the early 1990s, the local theatre community had matured and was led largely by young English-educated Singaporeans who were constantly pushing the boundaries of censorship. More crucially, this burgeoning theatre industry was supported by the broadening Singapore middle class who now possessed the disposal income to consume leisure activities and the desire to reflect on home-made stories and narratives. Thirdly, Goh Chok Tongs succession as prime minister in 1990 resulted in the kinder, gentler society slogan, presumably to distinguish his administration from the more authoritarian Lee Kuan Yew. This political handover fuelled optimistic hopes of political and cultural liberalisation.
These three factors led to several changes in the arts and cultural scene during the 1990s. The 1992 Censorship Review Committee published several recommendations to liberalise the arts and cultural industry. With regards to theatre, it mooted a classification system, akin to that for cinemas. Another recommendation was that theatre companies with good track records need no longer send in their scripts for vetting by Public Entertainment Licensing Unit (PELU) officers, though public entertainment licences from the Singapore Police Force still needed to be applied for. Over the years these recommendations have been refined and state funding has increased. The National Arts Council (NAC), the primary cultural state institute, has expanded the funding schemes to include Project Grants, Annual Grants and 2-Year Major Grants in order to meet the objective of reaching out to as many arts groups as possible, while nurturing those with the potential to tour the international arts circuit.
Singapores cultural policy has evolved since the late 1980s. To be sure, it is still used as a means to disseminate state discourses. However, it has developed many more facets. The first is its arts appreciation agendum. To this purpose the NAC has sponsored arts education programmes and served as an administrative bridge to bring arts groups to local schools. Local museums and galleries have been systematically upgraded in the attempt to make arts consumption a staple in the Singaporean entertainment diet. The second facet of Singapores cultural policy is the promotion of arts and culture as marker of a sophisticated and mature society. The proliferation and mass consumption of arts and culture, to the governments mind, will engender a civic minded polity. This initiative is tied to re-branding the city-state to attract foreign capital and talent to the island to live, work and play. Thirdly, the arts and culture is recognised by the government as source of creativity, innovation and solutions to challenges within the knowledge-based economy. Keen to develop the creative industries, the government has encouraged infrastructural bridging between arts, design and multimedia organisations in order to produce better designed and more sophisticated information technological products to compete in the global market.
Lastly, it is also useful to see Singapores cultural policy as a particular distribution of resources, and the interests that are fulfilled with this pattern of resource distribution. While the Global City for the Arts project has pressured the Singapore state into shedding some of its authoritarian practices to conform to international norms, the logic of neo-capitalism and market demands have led to certain arts groups with the requisite cultural capital to attract tourists and cosmopolitan consumers benefiting more from the countrys cultural policies than others. The Singapore governments cultural policy, specifically designed to reconstruct the city-state as a global city, has resulted in exacerbating the economic disparity between arts groups along ethnic and linguistic lines. Contemporary English-language theatre companies for example, are located in the higher strata of fund distribution while the less well-attended ethnic theatre companies are located in the lower strata. In short, Singapores cultural policy, primarily driven by economic impulses, has adopted the logic of globalisation to accentuate local inequalities.
Author: Dr. Terence Chong, a sociologist and a Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Email: terencechong@iseas.edu.sg
Email: terencechong@iseas.edu.sg
There are no comments for this content yet.
similar content
