This reflective essay is based on the first panel session titled “From Differences, Unity” from the Singapore Perspectives Conference 2014.
Speakers:
Associate Professor Kwok Kian Woon
Associate Provost (Student Life), President’s Office
Division of Sociology
School of Humanities and Social Sciences
Nanyang Technological University
Dr Leslie Teo
Managing Director
Chief Economist
and
Director of Economics and Investment Strategy
GIC Private Limited
Chairperson:
Dr Sharon Siddique
Director
Sreekumar.Siddique & Co Pte Ltd
and
Visiting Professorial Fellow
Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities
Singapore University of Technology and Design
In his presentation, Assoc. Prof. Kwok Kian Woon asked the audience to envision an alternative framework for perceiving difference other than through the established CMIO model. He suggested using the arts as a creative medium through which differences can be worked out and even transcended. Assoc. Prof. Kwok showed the paintings ‘National Day’ (1967) by artist Liu Kang and ‘National Language Class’ (1959) by Chua Mia Tee, describing both as testaments to the creative genius of the human mind in shaping the ideal of unity and transculturalism.
His reservations towards the status quote are not unfamiliar, given how academics have persistently questioned the usefulness of pigeonholing Singaporeans into the aforementioned racial categories. While turning towards the art is not novel, Assoc. Prof Kwok’s commentary on the potential of the arts is underpins Singapore’s growing stature as an important arts global stage.
In its effort to engineer the little red dot into a global arts hub, the Singapore government has spared no expenses. Come 2015, the former Supreme Court and City Hall will be transformed into the S$530 million National Art Gallery. This majestic centrepiece will be flanked by other developments such as the establishment of Centre for Contemporary Art and the relatively nascent School of the Arts. Add this to the slew of arts events such as Art Stage, Singapore Biennale and the Singapore Arts Festival, one cannot possibly be faulted for being sanguine about the potential of the arts in Singapore. However, would having more venues and events for the arts necessarily equate to an enlightened society?
The arts through its many forms have always been seen as a catalyst to foment change. Sure, there is the prickly issue of censorship which limits freedom of expression and this has in fact been the case in Singapore. Yet accomplished artists have been known to stretch their creative talents to send a strong yet subtle message across. They should still be able to hone their craft within the boundaries of the status quo. Think Alfian Sa’at, Alvin Tan, Ivan Heng, to name a few playwrights — and of course, how can we forget the plucky Catherine Lim, the matron of the Singapore literary scene? It is not that we lack capable practitioners of the arts in Singapore. Neither is it a lack of an audience. The Singapore Cultural Statistics Reports from the Ministry of Community Culture and Youth show that consumption of the arts and culture has been increasing steadily over the last decade, although the numbers did taper off slightly in 2012.
Nonetheless, I remain sceptical of Assoc. Prof. Kwok’s recommendation to turn to the arts — and the reason is the way in which the audience consumes the arts in Singapore.
During the conference, a participant questioned the effectiveness of an arts education in cultivating a refined, civilised society. He explained that the Nazi officers of the Third Reich too indulged in the philosophical works of Nietzsche, Heidegger and enjoyed the music of Beethoven. There are some caveats to that assertion. For one, it has been found that the Nazi propagandists headed by Goebbels were very selective in the reading of the aforementioned philosophers’ work; only the parts that could be read in line with Hitler’s Aryan agenda were actively promoted and approved for consumption. Works of leading German writers/playwrights then such as Bertolt Brecht and Alfred Kerr which were deemed to be subversive to the system, were burnt.
But what has this history lesson got to do with the consumption of the arts in Singapore you may ask? Art in its many forms depends on a form of symmetrical transfer; in order for its message to be effectively transmitted, there has to be an audience, a public who is interested. The example above shows that there are many ways to consume the arts (and humanities for that matter). It can be a tool for propaganda, consumed for the sake of reiterating the superiority of a particular culture. In that sense, the consumption of the arts is purely functional.
The same could be said of the situation in Singapore. I venture to say that the consumption of the arts in Singapore could be interpreted as a wave of cultural capital accumulation, for the purposes of social mobility. In this respect, the message in the craft is lost. This is where I feel Assoc. Prof. Kwok’s idealism falls short.
The state has always emphasised pragmatism and economism as key aspects of the Singaporean paradigm; and even while the arts continue to blossom under the patronage of the state, it remains a strange bedfellow to the Singaporean sensibility. In an interview with online magazine Destinasian, Francois Grossas, a curator who ran Galerie Waterton in the Tanjong Pagar Distripark, expressed quite succinctly: ‘The government is certainly trying to make Singapore an art hub but it will never be like Hong Kong… this is because you don’t create a market and a culture from the top down.’
The current promotion of the arts is primarily driven by economics; an investment on soft capital befitting of Singapore’s grand agenda to establish itself as a cosmopolitan centre. Undoubtedly, there are artists who strive to educate, raise awareness through their craft. I, however, do not share Assoc. Prof. Kwok’s optimism on the potential of art as a platform for change in Singapore. Not at the moment anyway. For the arts to be an effective platform to encourage humanism, creativity and agency, it requires a mature audience who is able to understand the arts beyond mere aesthetics. That will hopefully come in the future, what with arts schools and liberal arts colleges sprouting in Singapore. I end my piece by paraphrasing Indonesian writer Pramoedya Ananta Toer: ‘Without a deep appreciation of the arts, we are but clever animals.’
Mohammad Khamsya is a research assistant at the Institute of Policy Studies.
For more information on Singapore Perspectives 2014, please visit our IPS website.
Please also do check out the other articles on Singapore Perspectives 2014, including:
• Singapore Perspectives 2014: Opening Remarks by Janadas Devan
• SP 2014: Articulating Differences for an Evolving Nation: A Socio-Economic Standpoint by Sarjune Ibrahim S/O Sitheek
• SP 2014: More than Just Differences by Chang Zhi Yang
• SP 2014: Literature and Empathy: Understanding Differences by Zhou Rongchen
• SP2014: Contestation versus Consensus: which is a more constructive force? by Teo Jin Ye