Art, identity and belonging; the day-to-day practices of mutual respect – and respectful disagreement – are some of the most fragile, ambiguous and unpredictable domains of human experience. Not, at first glance, the business of politics. But they are also amongst the most powerful and meaningful. They can make the difference between a livable life, and a life worth living. They offer no quick fix. But as we seek various economic and social strategies for quality growth and an inclusive society, considerations of art and culture challenge us to think big, to think beyond borders, and point the way to doing so.
Good artists know what it takes to make a big picture, because that’s literally their job. Contrary to cliché, they know you don’t get there by being vague or airy-fairy. Regardless of the materials you are working with – paint, language, technology, bodies – you interrogate your chosen themes rigorously and relentlessly. Sometimes, the result is literally big like the Sistine Chapel or the long inkwork scrolls of the Chinese literati. At other times, it is as small and perfect as a Japanese haiku, but it contains multitudes.
A big picture was made in Singapore recently. A moving picture. Anthony Chen’s film ‘Ilo Ilo’ or《爸妈不在家》is a poignant story, set against the backdrop of the Asian financial crisis in Singapore, and chronicles the relationship between a family of three and their Filipino helper. It made history when it became the first Singapore film to win the coveted Camera d’OR award at Cannes last year, as well as four Golden Horse awards in Taiwan, including Best Feature Film. A very Singaporean film about a Singapore story has managed to resonate with millions around the world.
Anthony Chen’s achievement and the international success of ‘Ilo Ilo’ offers some themes for us to ponder as our nation moves forward into the next fifty years. I would like to touch on three of them here. First, making creativity a national priority. Second, supporting our creative industries. And finally, preserving our sense of home.
Creativity as a National Priority
The example of Anthony and his team is an inspiration to all Singapore artists. But the bigger picture here isn’t about filmmaking. It’s about having the confidence to contribute something original and unique to the world. It’s about what keeps you going, and what keeps you invested in your work, when no one is invested in you. Tom and David Kelley, the team behind leading innovation and design firm, IDEO, call this “creative confidence” – recognizing that we all have the capacity to create change in the world through new ideas, solutions and approaches.
These are the kinds of qualities we need as a society, and in our people, if we are to remain adaptable and agile as technological innovations bring on the next wave of change to global economies and job markets. Innovation can be a wonderful thing, but it does kill jobs, especially those vulnerable to automation or outsourcing. One immediate risk is rising inequality and social dislocation.
One of the most important ways in which governments can help people through this dislocation is through education – an education that prepares our people for an uncertain but exciting future. To this end, management guru Peter Drucker, in 1957, observed that that in an age of innovation, “a practical education must prepare a man for work that does not yet exist and cannot yet be clearly defined. To be able to do this, a man must have learned to learn.” Think about that for a moment. Do we have an education system that prepares our people for the future? Can we, hand on heart, say that our students are learning to learn – and learning to love it?
If this government is serious about long-term quality growth based on innovation and deeper capabilities, a major change in attitude towards education and educational outcomes is required. First, we need to move away from a narrow, grades-obsessed definition of success, and place the focus more squarely on the process of learning, and learning to learn. The appetite for new ideas and risk-taking must start from young. Yet our streaming policy and high-stakes testing environment perpetuate the fear of failure, and penalize us for getting wrong answers. How ironic, since such experiences are integral to creativity, learning and innovation.
Second, we need to debunk the myth that creativity is only for artists. Creativity is a kind of literacy that anyone can develop – whether you’re an engineer, manager, salesperson or MP. The arts and arts education are just some of the ways to cultivate the creative, collaborative and critical thinking skills that are needed in today’s world and in the future. By integrating the arts more fully into our core curriculum, we give all students access to its benefits, and not just the privileged few who can afford enrichment programmes.
We need to build creative capabilities in our leaders too, in both the public and private sector. A generation of leaders who believe they can respond creatively to a changing world, who can imagine and build new systems and services, as well as re-build declining ones. A generation of leaders, who accept that they may not have all the answers, and are willing to have a more open and transparent process of citizen engagement so that ideas can flourish. The Singapore Conversation last year was a good start, and showed that Singaporeans can be an active part of this process of co-creation. We should consider making this dialogue a more permanent platform.
It is time to view creativity as a national priority. In his speech for this year’s Budget debate, Minister Lim Swee Say said that it is no longer enough to have the first kind of bricklayers, the ones who just lays bricks. We need more of the third kind he talks of – the bricklayers who can imagine themselves building homes and hospitals. The ability to create, build and spread ideas is one of the most powerful tools for growth. When we talk about building ‘resilience’ as a nation, we should also acknowledge that the future is unpredictable, and that our ability to react, adapt and embrace challenges swiftly and with confidence requires creativity. If we are serious about realizing the economic vision laid out in this year’s Budget Statement, we need to connect productivity and resilience explicitly with creativity.
Supporting our Creative Industries
What we refer to as the “creative economy” is a collection of individuals and businesses, in particular the micro-enterprises, who engage in activities such as design, fashion, publishing, architecture, film, music, broadcast and digital media, and the performing and visual arts. The vibrancy of Singapore’s creative industries is important, not only because it is an indication of the quality of our ideas and our innovativeness, but because it enables Singapore to stand out from other creative economies in its own unique way.
Many creative enterprises are small-scale businesses that face enormous challenges in the current business environment, including escalating rentals and increasing competition from international brands. Last year, the independent boutique ‘Blackmarket’, which was based at Orchard Central, had to close due to a steep increase in rental. It was one of the few retail stores that stocked designed-in-Singapore fashion and accessories, and supported independent designers here.
While I am heartened by the government’s continued efforts to help our SMEs restructure and raise productivity, I hope the government will not turn a blind eye to the challenges of the micro-enterprises that contribute to the creative culture of Singapore. Their operations are often too small or too labour-intensive to benefit from automation, and they rarely have sufficient upfront capital or cashflow to upgrade and expand. Hansel, a Singapore womenswear label, wanted to take advantage of the PIC scheme to purchase a Point-of-Sale system recently. They were so cash-strapped however, that even raising the funds to pay for the system upfront, before being reimbursed from the PIC cash payout, was extremely difficult.
Sometimes it is not just about more funding. Grant funding is welcome but it tends to come with onerous application requirements and KPIs. Perhaps larger companies with the resources and manpower find it easier to manage these processes. But designers running a two or three-person outfit rarely have the capabilities to do so. In fact, a jewellery designer jokingly told me that, despite her five years experience as Managing Director of an international advertising agency, she still finds it challenging to navigate the application process! To help our micro-enterprises access government funding, we must simplify the grant criteria and processes.
A dollar spent on a local product goes further than one spent on an import. To better support the presence of Singapore design in the market, could we consider ‘cluster’ housing for creative enterprises in unused, government buildings or conserved spaces at affordable or low rents? Not only will this bring vibrancy to a precinct or neighbourhood, it builds a strong identity for Singapore’s design culture and international visitors have the unique opportunity to buy products they cannot get anywhere else.
We also need to broaden and soften the KPIs for this sector. Rather than looking at target sales and financials as outcomes, could we not give more value to other forms of impact, like the contributions they make to quality of life and Singapore’s reputation internationally? After all, our creative industries have great potential to extend Singapore’s soft power overseas. The success of home-grown fashion label Ong-Shunmugam on the runways of New York or at Paris Fashion Week has a tremendous knock-on effect on how Singapore is perceived as a creative hub. The international accolades for ‘Ilo Ilo’ have thrown the spotlight not only on Singapore cinema, but on Singapore as a whole. Shown in over 30 territories across the world, it is a powerful way of projecting who we are, our stories and our creativity to a global audience.
The value of our creative industries lies in their ability to seed original ideas, nurture human capital, and play a role in cultural diplomacy. It is not enough for Singapore to be a host to international creative companies. We should also aspire to nurture our own Singapore brands, talents and enterprises in this sector. This has economic benefits, in terms of value capture and building economic resilience. But more importantly, it brings social benefits – it fosters our sense of national pride and identity through Singapore-inspired products, as well as inspires the next generation of creative talent for Singapore.
Preserving a Sense of Home
Singapore’s small size is often noted. We are a ‘little red dot’. But as the population increases and the infrastructure groans, even as land usage continues to be intensified, many feel that Singapore is shrinking: they have less space to themselves, and have been paying more for what they have.
The past few years have seen an outpouring of frustration from Singaporeans who feel that they have had to welcome too many foreigners, too fast. This has had an impact on wages and prices. The fact that such concerns have led to the heartfelt expression of a Singapore identity is both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge lies in the risk of xenophobia – that we shrink to fit our tiny island by becoming small-minded and hard-hearted. The opportunity arises from the basic fact that we’re bigger than that. Space is tight. But our history is one of welcome and accommodation. Singapore has never only been for Singaporeans. That so many people of such diversity would express such a strong commitment to this place is something to be proud of.
If we lose our sense of compassion and generosity, our place in the economic pecking order will be the least of our worries. In 2012, debate over the fate of Bukit Brown cemetery was raging. Pragmatism has prevailed and some exhumations are underway. But we all know it was a turning point. Many Singaporeans discovered a new passion for their heritage. Some even realized their own family history had lain hidden more or less under their noses for decades. The assumption that people will accept development at all costs can no longer be taken for granted. As Professor Wang Gungwu wrote recently, with Bukit Brown in mind: “For a community to thrive, it is vital for each to defend the right to preserve what its members want.” The heritage phenomenon, he says, “is a measure of cultural resilience, something that comes from living and caring for what is familiar.”
In a recent paper published by the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Professor Joel Kotkin noted that great cities are safe, busy and sacred, and he rightly points out that Singapore has done well in the first two areas – security and commerce. But something in Singapore is still not working well. Why do polls show Singaporeans as amongst the most pessimistic people in the world? Why is Singapore fairing poorly in family formation and total fertility rate? Kotkin suggests that we re-evaluate the third aspect of urban success – the sacred.
Sacred spaces are found in those sites and experiences that make one feel an irrational commitment to a place. While our global city status has worked extremely well for Singapore from an economic point of view, there is incessant pressure for us to conform to a global pattern of living that obliterates differences. Our malls have become crowded with the exact same stores found in London or Dubai; our neighbourhoods are rapidly gentrifying as traditional businesses make way for hip, upmarket restaurants and cafes. Other than increased prices and the increased cost of living that accompany this process of globalisation, our sense of place is slowly eroding, and with it, the sacred space and sentimental ties that come from living and caring for what is familiar.
Boffins, bureaucrats and businesspeople may come up with ingenious ways to maximize the limited space available, but once we’ve built sky-high and tunneled deep down, the only space we can still expand is the one in our hearts. If we are to nurture a strong community and the next generation of Singaporeans who will be emotionally connected to this country, we need to restore a sense of place, a sense of home, to this city. To do so, we need to heed and seriously consider the calls and appeals by communities on issues of heritage and conservation.
In balancing the pressures of a global city with the emotional needs of Singaporeans and the imperatives of a small, young nation struggling to define itself in this world, we need to tread carefully, mindful of the meanings and histories of the ground we walk upon. Only then can we nurture the kinds of human capacities that are really needed – learning to do more with less, and to accommodate each other, as well as others, in our compact city.
Janice Koh is a Nominated Member of Parliament. This essay is an excerpt of her speech in Parliament on March 4, 2014, delivered during the Budget debate.
Photo credits: Ben Kwek