The coolest catchphrases at yesterday's budget debate at the Parliament were musicians and bands. Everyone was namedropping them. But I guess it’s no surprise considering that it was the turn of the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts to strut their thing. Here then were some essential points that came out at that session – with the main thing being that the Arts and Culture Strategic Review report has been approved “in-principle” by the government. The ACSR has got a lot of stuff in it so MICA has identified, for now, three “priority areas”: the Community Engagement Masterplan, Arts and Culture Education Masterplan and Capability Development Roadmap. A total of S$274m will be set aside for these from 2012 to 2016. Here are some things you can expect, which would seem fairly familiar. After all, it's taking off from the ACSR recommendations.

• More Arts and Culture 101 Programmes (a series on Chng Seok Tin’s work is next, this month)
• An arts and culture online portal (ArtsCultureSG) and “cultural concierges” in libraries.
• Enhancing the “Youth Arts Programme” and establishing a “Silver Arts Programme”.
• Exploring the possibility of setting up a number of school-based Regional Cultural Centres.
• Setting up Community Arts and Culture Clubs in every constituency and the upgrading of some 25 CCs.
• A new Community Arts and Culture Month initiative by People’s Association starting this month.
• A new Arts Educational Pedagogical Fund for teachers.
• More scholarships from NAC – 140 in the next five years.
• An arts management training programme leading to a Workforce Skills Qualifications diploma in arts management, which rolls out in April.

You can read more about it here or here. It would seem like the government's doing things in reverse (shiny new hardware first, software later) but there are two ways of looking at these announcements: Yawn or Yay. You have to admit all these are rather "unsexy" -- scholarships, arts management boost, "101" arts crash courses for the community, etc -- but they are very necessary. "Better late than never"? "Finally"? "Really meh"? "Awesome"? You decide.

***

I also finally caught a brief glimpse of our Arts NMP in action (on our office’s “RF feed”) and my first impression was… Janice Koh talks fast. Hee. Still, she put across some interesting points that have been fairly common sentiments on the ground in the arts community. One was… ah, what the heck, you’ll probably want to read the entire thing. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to catch the back and forth Q&A after this. If it becomes available to the public, I'll buzz you. In the meantime, here's what our Arts NMP brought up in Parliament yesterday. Give or take a few minor deviations from the script. But hey, actors improvise.

***

Evaluating the impact of arts policies

Mr Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the Arts and Culture Strategic Review report launched in February this year. The report suggests taking a more bottom-up approach to developing the arts and cultural scene. I think this is a good move, if it means that government will be more flexible and responsive with financial and infrastructural support when good ideas are initiated from the ground. However, charting a course for arts development requires some top-down leadership, especially when it comes to providing a vision and framework for art-makers and stakeholders to work collectively towards. The strategies put forth should also be backed by quantitative and qualitative research that study the impact of previous arts policy recommendations. In this way, we build on previous successes and identify gaps where policy has failed. We never start from ground zero. The ACSR report, however, did not include an objective assessment of the collective recommendations made under MICA’s Renaissance City Plans (RCP) I, II and III over the last ten years. In fact, some of the broad aims and proposals in the ACSR report had already been identified and echoed in RCP III in 2008. These include the need to strengthen professional capabilities, enrich arts education in schools, strengthen community bonding through the arts, promote advocacy through research, and provide more incentives to increase arts sponsorship. Sir, my question is: Has MICA conducted any detailed evaluation on the impact and outcomes of these recommendations made RCP III, as a lead up to and backdrop for the ACSR report? For instance, considering that cash and in-kind sponsorships to the arts have fallen since 2008, has MICA set up an independent body to broker arts partnerships between the business and arts communities? Have we successfully co-located more arts groups within schools, libraries and CCs to ease the arts housing crunch while strengthening ties with the community? Has MICA partnered with HDB to integrate the arts and culture in town planning design as a way of transforming our urban landscape? In addition, has MICA been collating comparative data that evaluates the contributions, and returns on investment of say, our major grant-funded organizations, including the Singapore Symphony Orchestra (SSO) and the Singapore Chinese Orchestra (SCO), that would provide the basis of a more targeted approach in their funding policy? If so, would MICA consider making such information public? Detailed impact studies are regularly undertaken by arts councils in Canada, Scotland, Australia and the UK, as a way of providing a good overview of the health of the funded arts sector, and are usually made publicly available.

Management of major arts festivals and venues

Mr. Chairman, in light of the ACSR report’s proposal to review and restructure of some of MICA’s cultural agencies, namely the National Arts Council (NAC), National Heritage Board (NHB) and the National Library Board (NLB), would MICA consider devolving some of the major festivals under NAC to be run independently and autonomously, but with the necessary financial support? These include the Singapore Arts Festival, the Biennale and the Singapore Writers Festival. Similarly, would MICA consider letting major venues like the new Victoria Theatre and The Drama Centre be managed as independent entities that receive government subsidy? If these major arts events and venues have their own independent boards and artistic missions, it would generate greater vibrancy and diversity on the ground, while giving the arts community a chance to develop expertise in this area of management. In fact, the concept of running major arts organizations as independent and autonomous entities is not a new one. In the UK, the Royal Shakespeare Company, the Royal Court Theatre and the National Theatre are major venues that also programme and commission new work. Government grants hover between 30-50% of total income. In New York, the Brooklyn Academy of Music or BAM, receives more than 50% of its income from government and private sources. Sir, letting go of some of these entities will provide NAC with some objectivity and distance when it comes to looking at cultural policies and development. Any conflict of interest is eradicated because NAC will no longer be in competition with arts groups for event sponsorship, and would be able to play their role as an objective and independent broker of arts and business partnerships. Similarly, NAC would also no longer be in the incongruous position of being both the grant-provider and a collector of theatre rental from arts groups.

Protecting freedom of expression Mr Chairman, “If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him”. These were the words of John F Kennedy and they take us back to the core, fundamental principles of art making – that is, in order to create work that is relevant, authentic and truthful, artists need the artistic freedom to hold up a mirror to society; to examine and raise questions about who we are; and bring to the fore the issues of the day, which may sometimes make their work challenging and provocative. The ACSR report does not address how censorship and regulation procedures also negatively impact the development of a vibrant arts scene in the longer term. It does, however, suggest the creation of a No-Censorship Zone, like a Speaker’s Corner for the arts. Many artists I have spoken to feel that this is a regressive move. Instead of opening up channels for dialogue, such zoning marginalizes art and the role that it plays. It also sends a signal to the public that any art, no matter how good, which raises a topic deemed as sensitive, should be ring-fenced and protected from the public, lest it offends them. Typically, all it takes is for one member of the public to be so-called “offended”. A letter of complaint is sent. Alarm bells ring, and suddenly the whole work, which took months to create, and its funding, is in jeopardy. It doesn’t take into consideration the majority of audiences who valued and had no problems with the work. In an age where information is easily available on the internet, and where dialogue and debate on issues have become increasingly borderless, it seems almost backward to think that this sort of ring-fencing will (a) stop sensitive issues from coming out into the open, (b) stop members of the public who did not participate in the event from being offended, (c) satisfy an artists’ right to expression and their need to communicate with an audience simply by giving them a little corner of their own. If MICA were to adopt this No-Censorship Zone proposal, it should consult closely with art makers and producers. MICA has been trying to shift the balance of content regulation from censorship towards classification and co-regulation over the years. It is true that it is rare for a film or arts event to be disallowed under current guidelines. But artists are still finding it difficult to make work, because not only is government involved in regulation, it is also extensively involved in the administration, funding, housing, presentation and promotion of the arts. Therefore, the scope of interference, both direct and indirect, in the creation and presentation of an artwork, continues to be wide. In moving towards regulation and away from censorship, we should instead promote responsibility on the part of art makers and greater transparency and accountability on the part of the regulator, and any disagreements should be resolved through an open and transparent appeals procedure. Guidelines and timelines should also be clear, readily available and followed, and there should be a consistent approach in the treatment of local and foreign work. At the same time, the arts community, together with our media, should find ways of developing platforms to dialogue on our differences, so that we gradually develop greater tolerance and understanding in society. In this regard, mainstream and online media play an important role in raising the level of arts discourse. Sir, at this juncture, it is also worthwhile to remember that artists too are parents and educators, who have the interests of the young at heart, and who have audiences and boards to whom they are accountable. Ultimately, we want to move towards building a relationship of trust and mutual respect between artists and government, and where audiences and the public are empowered to make choices. Sir, in September 2010, MICA announced that it has accepted over 80% of the Censorship Review Committee’s latest recommendations. These include granting term licensing to arts groups and increasing transparency on its regulatory process. Could MICA give us an update on how many of these recommendations have been implemented and to what effect? My second question to Minister is: how does MICA and its cultural agencies intend to strike the right balance between protecting the freedom of artistic expression and imposing restrictions that will curtail artistic vibrancy and diversity?

Support for local contemporary music Mr. Chairman, I was heartened by the initiative taken in the ACSR report to provide more support to the Singapore popular music scene. However, the proposals put forward by the report seem to prioritize infrastructural and business needs over the longer-term development and promotion of individual musicians and bands. Some of the concerns voiced by many practicing musicians in the industry are fairly basic. The local contemporary music sector has been suffering from a lack of opportunities to showcase upcoming artists as well as experienced, export-ready talent. There is also an insufficient pool of professional expertise on the ground, from sound engineers to tour managers, to groom new music talent and support the career development of more experienced ones. But the biggest obstacle to developing an audience for homegrown music is not having sufficient airtime on radio. How do you nurture an interest in local music or build a thriving ecosystem for the music scene, if it’s not even readily available on mainstream, popular radio stations or heard during peak airtime hours? Of course, some local programmers play local music on their stations, but a few hours, once or twice a week is not enough exposure. Similarly, it is not enough to relegate local music to one specialist radio station like Lush 99.5 – the audience for such channels are just too small to help local musicians make any significant impact on the local market. Many developed and developing countries including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France and Ireland have established quotas for the broadcast of local music, where legislation or regulations require some minimum percentage of time devoted to the broadcast of local music, or a minimum number of tracks per hour. The quota requirements average between 25%-30%, with some countries like France going up to 40%. Such quotas help to support the development of a unique local music culture and the forging of a common cultural identity. But more importantly, quotas ensure that the public has regular access to local music. And once a demand for the music is created, the benefits and positive spillovers are real and tangible. Increased airtime play contributes to improved record sales, this leads to more bookings for the bands, increased music production output, more music studios operating, a jump in the quality of music, greater coverage in the media, and eventually a demand from international audiences. There is a chance that there may not even be enough high quality local content to broadcast at the beginning. But in the case of New Zealand and Canada, the music content improved and started to double within five years. Sir, my question is: Would MICA seriously consider establishing a broadcast quota system as a key strategy for developing an audience for local music, and eventually building a self-sustainable and vibrant contemporary music scene? Also, what kinds of initiatives and funding support is MICA planning to roll out for this sector? And how does MICA intend to balance the support given to the development of local musicians against that given to the commercial music sector?