WANTED: Someone to restore Arteri and give it 2nd life. Interested? Email: mail.sharonchin.com
T. Sasitharan speaking at Arts Comm NMP meeting. Photo: Tan Ngiap Heng
By June Yap
SINGAPORE – First the caveat – I write this in a personal capacity, and views (and turn of phrase) are possibly merely views. That said, views are perhaps what makes an arts community what it is, fragmented, multi-dimensional, vibrant and desperately trying to prevent itself from being labelled as ‘a community’, and thus appear homogenous and predictable.
May Day 2009 saw an unexpected sort of situation, one that in a way has been spurred by the government who on April 6 announced in the state paper that submissions of nominations to the government for Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) may be made by the people. Six groups were invite to propose names for possible candidates: business and industry, labour, professions, social and community service organisations; tertiary education institutions; and media, arts and sports organisations. A coordinator for each of these six groups was also announced with Edmund Cheng, chairman of the National Arts Council accounting for the group on media, arts and sports organisations, a group comprising of unlikely bed partners, but which was nonetheless encouraging for some members of the arts community.
A discussion ensued in the arts community internet group that was initiated by a few members with performing arts and visual arts backgrounds who acted as moderators/facilitators, to come together as a community to nominate candidates to the assigned coordinator. Of course representation quickly became an issue, after all where would we find an all-singing, all-dancing, literate, performing, producing, film-making, painting, sculpting, installation artist or member of the community to take up this role. And that is if we even managed to convince him/her to be willing to subject himself/herself to the prospect of speaking with the Minister Mentor face to face at some point (a question that was raised for candidates’ responses during the arts comm election on May Day).
A few issues would surface during the discussions online: whether such a person would/should ever veer from the topic of the arts to comment on other spheres of life impacting artists (artists being ordinary citizens as well), the role that an NMP would have to play, difficulties such an individual might face being stretched representing so many art forms (and we haven’t even begun to speak about the sports they might have to master), the responsibilities of representation, censorship policies and censorship issues faced by artists, the relationship between art and politics, and if arts issues may capitulate or provide only for tenuous gestures under the influence of the dominant polity in spite of the purported representation.
Conflicted by the large variety of issues, many individuals known to the arts community and the public as well for their professional work in the arts, were proposed, and many declined. Many however agreed to support through help, advice and research volunteered – all the back-end work and none of the politicking, demonstrating that even if the manner of engagement left something to be desired, the wish to engage was nevertheless very much present.
It should also be noted that the nominations by the arts comm, beyond having the endorsement of the community present at the arts comm election process, do not possess other magical nomination powers, as other individuals may independently propose themselves to the coordinator. So this nomination by the arts community then perhaps functions as a process of consensus-building. Consensus is an interesting process that is necessarily participatory and thus not without a certain risk that an individual takes to allow for certain larger desires to be performed. The grassroots approach to the process of raising candidates to the coordinator came as a surprise, but one that proved heartening as well to some members of the group seeing that so many could be enlisted at short notice.
Nomination election day arrived and at TheatreWorks’ 72-13 venue the soap-box session provided a few interesting morsels for consideration, such as Loretta Chen’s admonishment for the NMP to get ‘low’ – to listen, be open and non-judgemental, and to work with different groups and communities of individuals. Of note also was how the candidates saw themselves in relation to the community, illustrated in Audrey Wong’s inclusive comment that “only we can speak for ourselves”. Asked for their burning issues, Loretta raised an important point about the need for transparency in decisions, exchanges and interactions between government agencies and artists/citizens.
Another point that has been briefly touched upon in discussions but left largely undebated though now more pressing, is the process of how the coordinator and Special/Parliamentary Select Committee would handle nominees for a group such as this, that at least at this time, conflates the interests of media, arts and sports organisations, and what then is recommended to the President given the NMP serves by his appointment. Not to mention, as has been raised in the online discussion as well, perhaps the question should go beyond having a NMP, to having a Minister of Culture. Again, transparency comes into play, as what happens after the nominations are submitted to the Special/Parliamentary Select Committee would be most informative as to what exactly has been meant by the offer to engage with these functional groups. But perhaps it is early days yet, after all from this process, we might find ourselves with parliamentary representation more schooled in sports than arts, and then artists might have to win medals at art competitions, speed painting, anyone?…
Well. This May Day, some hundred individuals came together to put their collective thoughts to the test and under a democratic, open and very well organised election process, voted for Audrey Wong (Artistic Co-Director of The Substation) and Loretta Chen (Artistic Director of Zebra Crossing Productions) as the candidates this community would nominate to the group’s coordinator. The arts community has shown that it can rally behind a few individuals to speak if not for them, at least as themselves as members of an arts community. So now it is time for the government to step up to the plate, and deliver the other side to this dialogue.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hi June,
Thanks for writing. Am curious: How aware are Singaporean artists from different disciplines of each others’ work and practice? I’m not necessarily referring to interdisciplinary production. More like, do disciplines often function in isolation in terms of patronage from their art peers? Do visual artists actively support the theatre scene by going to see a local production? Or the writing circle being aware of like let’s say the contemporary dance initiatives? What is the level of engagement within the singapore ‘art’ community?
I might be wrong on this, but there seem to be very little of this kind of support in Malaysia so when we speak of an arts community, it seems very fragmented. Not that there isn’t a sense of community, I often feel that it’s built on a tacit friendliness that doesn’t go beyond the ‘hi-bye’ politeness.
Dear Simon,
I happened to be one of the artists present during the first meeting of the ‘arts community’ for ArtsNMP on April 16, 2009 at the White House, Emily Hill.
The notes of the meeting indicated two persons who had reservations about having an ArtsNMP. I was one of them although I saw a couple more hands raised. My reservation is based on the NMP scheme itself rather than the process the ‘arts community’ was willing to go through. This view I have is based on my participation in the arts, civil society and politics (although I’m not a member of any political party)
In Singapore, the boundaries between the arts and politics have been falsely held up due to fear, funding, apathy etc. I’ve met more individuals who traversed all three spheres in Malaysia, especially KL. One should first understand that the NMP scheme was set up for reasons that, in truth, are detrimental to the state of parliamentary democracy in Singapore and the larger political sphere.
Simon
In response to your question, I’d say that Singapore artists are probably better at coming together over initiatives such as this, than at consistently supporting each others’ creative work.
That said, it is telling that the candidate who got by far the largest vote, Audrey Wong, is also the one who is perhaps the most mobile across disciplines and media – not as an artist, but as Co-Director of the Substation, which has a gallery, theatre, dance studio, screenings, etc.
Could someone provide an explanation of the NMP system? Is it a form of parliamentary representation given to particular stakeholder groups with equivalent powers to an MP from an electoral constituency? Why was it instituted? What is the significance of an Arts/Sports/etc. NMP vs. engagement with the relevant ministry or authority?
Shao Loong
All good questions – not all easily answered. In brief: as you probably know, the People’s Action Party has enjoyed unrivalled parliamentary dominance in Singapore since full self-government in 1959. A number of schemes are in place to increase and diversify representation without undermining the PAP’s success at the ballot box. One is the so-called ‘Non Constituency MP’ scheme, which is like a ‘fastest loser’ prize – whenever opposition representation drops below 3, the numbers can be made up (to 3) by including whichever opposition candidate(s) lost by the smallest margin.
The other strategy is the NMP scheme. As June mentions above, there are 6 ‘functional groups’, plus several independents. NMPs can speak on any issue, and vote on most (excluding the Budget and a few others).
It’s hard to answer the last question regarding engagement with the relevant ministry, because the outcoming NMP is a sports person, and we in the arts haven’t heard a peep out of her for her whole tenure. So that’s a work in progress, to say the least.
Last thing: the NMP scheme is contentious, for obvious reasons. People who argue against it claim that it is no substitute for multi-party democracy, and indeed may serve to retard the development of such a system. The arts community has debated this issue quite extensively, and, as Isrizal’s comment indicates, above, the situation is far from resolved. In an article here [http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/05/%E2%80%9Ca-voice-for-the-arts-and-artists%E2%80%9D/], one of the initiators of the project, T. Sasitharan, describes it as a ‘principled compromise’.
Paul, thanks very much for that insight. I can imagine how from a bureaucratic perspective looking to ‘keep it simple’ they might cluster arts, sports, and media together as they are all forms of entertainment, but they have quite different needs and philosophies. Politically speaking the NMP appears to be effectively a form of corporatism.
Thanks for all the comments, sorry for the delay, have not been at my most productive.
Simon, i think like most places, artists in Singapore do stay within groups that are aligned with their disciplines and interests. Of course there are those who cross disciplines with happy impunity. That said, this itself is said in a rather sweeping manner which is problematic as well. To some extent and intent there are parts of my text that are simplistically portrayed, for reason that i am interested in questioning the purpose of the NMP for the Arts and how the coming together of some members of the arts comm might affect this and other attempts at engaging the state in cultural issues. And no, the article wasn’t meant to be journalism.
Isrizal, I do agree that the NMP scheme is probably not the best vehicle for ‘traversing’ the spheres, and that the ‘spheres’ themselves while policed are probably a lot more porous and uncontrolled than they appear (or that i might portray in the article). But there are those who see it in this manner and perhaps this is a means to bring some of those issues into light, and to put some focus and consideration upon the true purposes (or lack of) behind the scheme.
I do have reservations about the scheme but i am also curious about what will happen after this event. In part what compelled me to write about it is for the discussion to continue. Where history and events get so quickly and easily whitewashed, it is important i feel to speak up a little.