By Andrew Loh
“The guidelines clearly state that we will not fund projects which are incompatible with the core values promoted by the Government and society or disparage the Government,” said the director of arts development, National Arts Council (NAC), Ms Elaine Ng. She was referring to the NAC’s funding cut for theatre group, Wild Rice, in May 2010. [See here.]
Shortly after, some 23 members of the “Singapore Theatre Community” criticised the reasons given by Ms Ng.
In a statement to the media then, the group said that the “sole criterion” for the allocation of funds should be “works of high artistic merit.”
“We urge the NAC to revise and update its funding guidelines to better serve the expectations and aspirations of Singaporeans. NAC’s priority should be directed towards developing Singapore’s potential as a world-class city for the arts, and not towards developing the potential of a statutory board—entrusted with public money—as an organ of social control.” – Arts group, May 2010.
Two years since that episode, the Government seems not to have moved from its position.
It announced in March this year that it is introducing a new “self-classification” scheme for the arts which will take effect from 2014. This new classification scheme has two-tiers, as the Straits Times reported it [emphasis mine]:
First-tier licensees can self- classify performances that are suitable for a general audience, including children. But they will have to submit performances with potentially sensitive content - such as race, religion and politics - to MDA for classification.
To ensure they exercise responsible self-classification, they will have to provide a $1,000 performance bond signed by a guarantor, although an upfront cash payment is not necessary.
Second-tier licensees are not subject to the $1,000 bond. They can also self-classify performances up to the highest rating, R18, as well as performances that deal with racial, religious or political content.
The licences are valid for one year, and groups can stage as many self-classified performances as they want during this period without paying licensing fees for such performances.
The licence is renewable subject to an annual review, in which the MDA will evaluate whether licensees comply with regulations and accurately classify performances.
In a nutshell, it is control at a distance but still control, nonetheless. The State allows you to label your own works – but it can punish you (by withdrawing funding) if you label it inaccurately, according to its regulations. And the ultimate judge of that, one presumes, would be the minister himself.
The ban on funding for “projects which are incompatible with the core values promoted by the Government and society or disparage the Government” still stand as well.
So it is quite curious to hear the latest remarks of the minister in charge of the arts.
Mr Lawrence Wong, Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, said on 8 April 2013, that the government's policy on censorship "is evolving and moving away from censorship towards one of classification and self-regulation."
"Rather than to say these are OB markers and don't touch them whether it's politics, race or religion and say 'thou shall not touch it', I think we should move away from that and we should move to a situation where we have a dialogue on what the artist would like to convey even if it's a provocative issue on politics, race or religion and then have a conversation..." - Lawrence Wong, 8 April 2013. (CNA)
I think Singaporeans will, by and large, welcome the minister’s remarks. The arts community would certainly welcome dialogue with the authorities too. This has been something it’s been calling for anyway. But this so-called "self-regulation" is not really self-regulation if, as it is, the withdrawal of NAC funding is used as a tool to get the groups to conform.
Mr Wong’s remarks comes a month after the government announced the new two-tiered classification scheme. The way the government has gone about installing restrictions and imposing censorship on the arts community, using funding as a threat for the community to conform to what the government expects, smacks of highhandedness which, sadly, has created a certain sense of distrust of the authorities. Why speak of having or being interested in dialogues with the community while wielding the big stick? How does one have a conversation in such a context?
Be that as it may, the government should – finally – engage the community with not only an open mind but also an open heart. But more importantly, it should be willing to take some (political) risks and show more support for our artists and their craft – and quit trying to always muzzle them and beat them into submission. A little trust will go a long way. The government should step out of its comfort zone of conveniently invoking this mysterious “core values promoted by the Government and society” to justify the stiffling status quo.
This is a major cop-out, especially when these so-called “core values” are ambiguous, if they exist at all.
Arts is such that at some point, in some areas, some people will be offended, outraged, enraged, disgusted, by what artists put out there. That is how it should be for one of arts’ aims is to provoke so that conversations can be had, imaginations stirred, and new possibilities envisioned.
We should widen the threshold for people to be challenged in their beliefs and the norms of society questioned. We should not shy away from looking directly into our sensitivities – our races, the colour of our skin, the gods we believe in, or the political parties or politics we subscribe to.
“I sincerely feel that the funding guidelines regarding our so-called “core values” and “disparaging government institutions” – the very guidelines that lead to the punitive cuts to W!LD RICE - have no place in a truly democratic society,” Ivan Heng, founder and artistic director of W!ld Rice, said in a recent Facebook post.
It is time for the government to grow some backbone and stand up for the arts community – and take some risks in allowing it free rein, even if some quarters of our society feel we are not ready for this and want the present state of affairs to be preserved.
The government’s role should be to protect the space artists operate in, and not to step into that space itself to dictate how artists should use that space.
Yes, in a sense that will require some courage from the government, but if it is willing to do so, it may yet be surprised that our society is able to accept being provoked by the arts.
In fact, it is time our society be allowed to do that.
Mr Wong should not assume the nanny role his predecessors did. He should instead see his role as one which frees what they have caged.
As for those “core values”, ditch them.
“Everyone has a right to be delighted by, indifferent to or repulsed by art. But no one has the right to deny another the right to decide for his or her self.” – A Manifesto For The Arts.