Creative shifts and directions

Abstract

The availability and “readiness” of culture as a mode of governmental control makes cultural policy a matter of great importance in any contemporary society. This is true not only in liberal democracies with established arts councils or cultural policies, it is also proactively pursued by a technologically advanced yet illiberal regime like Singapore, eager to position itself as the global “Renaissance City” of the twenty‐first century. What this “renaissance” model entails remains highly cryptic, not least because cultural terms and political markers are often elusive, but also because the very concept of “cultural policy” shifts along with the political and economic tides in Singapore. Drawing on a rarely cited essay by Raymond Williams, this article offers an historical look at cultural policy in Singapore – from its first articulation in 1978 to its present standing under the rubric of “creative industries” (2002). It considers some of the problems encountered and the societal changes made to accommodate Singapore’s new creative direction, all for the sake of ensuring Singapore’s continued economic dynamism. This article contends that cultural policy in Singapore now involves extracting creative energies – and economies – out of each loosely termed “creative worker” by heralding the economic potential of the arts, media, culture and the creative sectors, but concomitantly marking boundaries of political exchange. In this regard, culture in Singapore has become more than ever a site for governmentality and control.

Keywords:

• arts
• media
• culture
• cultural policy
• creative industries
• governmentality

Notes

A good example of this is the refurbishment‐cum‐“cultural destruction” of Singapore’s Chinatown district. For further reading, see Kwok and Low (2001); Kong and Yeoh (2003).

Although not openly acknowledged, the situating of this new arts structure by the waterfront is manifestly inspired by the architectural and iconic success of the Sydney Opera House in Australia.

During a personal‐cum‐research visit to The Esplanade in January 2004, I observed that apart from the performance halls, other public areas within the structure resemble a typically modern Singaporean shopping centre. This is unsurprising when one considers the overtly commercial and tourism‐driven imperatives of the arts and culture in Singapore, along with the common description of Singapore as “one big shopping centre” (see B. H. Chua 2003).

This speech by the late Minister Ong Teng Cheong, widely regarded as one of Singapore’s most “cultured” government ministers for his deep love of music and the arts, was the earliest locatable reference to the term “cultural policy”.

Other recommendations include: establishment of a Literature Board, a National Heritage Trust (under the banner of “Organisational Improvements”); improvements to arts education in schools; improvement of cultural facilities (including The Esplanade, development plans for new museums, a new National Library); and, greater promotional efforts for the arts (including extending public‐private partnerships) (ACCA 1989, Chapter 4).

For more information on Singapore’s National Heritage Board (NHB) and the three national museums (the Asian Civilisations Museum, the Singapore Art Museum and the Singapore History Museum), visit www.nhb.gov.au. See also Ooi’s (2003) critique on the regional/local challenges facing these museums.

For more information about the National Arts Council (NAC), visit www.nac.gov.sg. See also the glossy publication from the NAC entitled Selves: The State of the Arts in Singapore (Kwok et al. 2000).

A pro‐economic sympathiser would read the release of Singapore: Global City for the Arts as favourable rather than inimical to the arts in Singapore. My intention is to point out that “selling” the fledgling arts sector for tourism and economic purposes may lead to the curtailment of its growth and development.

See also the deposed former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim’s (1996) framing of The Asian Renaissance, albeit from a Malaysian perspective.

It is worth noting that Singapore’s “new” cultural renaissance policy resonates with the larger goal of “Singapore 21”, the national vision statement that details Singapore’s social, cultural and political agendas for the twenty‐first century (MITA 2000, p. 42).

Another marker of Singapore’s attempts at opening‐up society and introducing a culture of “risk‐taking” is the introduction of reverse‐bungee jumping at Singapore’s Clarke Quay (see Wong 2003, p. H5).

The Media 21 agenda was first unveiled by the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (restructured into the Media Development Authority in January 2003) in early 2002. For further information on this, see Leo (2003).

Terence Lee, School of Media, Communication & Culture, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, australia. E‐mail [email protected].