Ambiguous clauses and the problem of interpretation
Far from providing clarity, the latest statement issued by the National Arts Council (NAC) has farther mystified the supposed guidelines that are adhered to in awarding grants, by throwing out a set of ambiguous clauses that masquerade as objective markers. What on earth are “alternative lifestyles”, this perpetual staple of conservative discourse? What are these “core values” that appear to possess us? These supposed guidelines are based on definitions that are susceptible to arbitrary readings and political manipulation. The council speaks of “core values” as if they could be identified with a litmus test.
Then of course, there is the even bigger conundrum of interpreting a work to determine its compatibility to these ambiguous guidelines. How do we ascertain the target and extent of a play’s political critique? Is it something we can judge from the programme booklet? Do we judge by referring to explicit, visible signals? Would The Necessary Stage’s production Can Change, staged in January, be considered a defender of government policy or its parody? Clearly such a system puts the works of W!LD RICE, with its broad mainstream appeal and its more demonstrative methods of satire at a clear disadvantage.
The fact is that the nuances of art will always present a challenge towards ascertaining its intentions with definite certitude. But the futility of attaining objectivity does not mean that it is impossible to create a set of guidelines that is at least functional. The key to this is communal dialogue. Any proclamation on objectivity is at best specious if the plurality of opinions coming from the various stakeholders of the art world (which includes the audience) is not even engaged. To carry out such deliberations within an exclusive group behind closed doors is to claim absolute authority over thematic and artistic interpretation.
A fundamentally problematic philosophy
But of course, the bigger question is, why bother even clarifying the definitions when the very nature of the guidelines is deeply problematic? Wouldn’t it be a mere refinement of the tools of oppression and a farther elaboration of a misguided philosophy? Before we even go about reestablishing the rules of governance, it is paramount to correct the fundamental misconceptions that inform the NAC’s approach towards the arts.
First, the notion of “alternative lifestyles” needs to be relooked. The authorities invoke the term as a preacher would speak of an absolute sin. But is there anything inherent wrong with the term “alternative”? The term has been rhetorically conflated with malicious abnormality through its appropriation in the anti-gay speeches of religious fundamentalists. Even if we were to consider the alternative as a deviation from a specified norm, why should difference be condemned? Why is the term, “alternative lifestyle” used to denigrate homosexuality but not vegetarianism or alternative spirituality?
In this light, hasn’t theatre always been about the alternative? Isn’t it the necessary responsibility of art to think, to question and to challenge the normative? The very nature of theatre has been built upon the alternative. It isolates the particular and personal and accentuates its individuated identity upon the stage. It functions within a fundamentally decentered space where a displacement of the universal enables new possibilities to be negotiated and expressed. Its ultimate utilitarian value towards society is thus its capacity to imagine and stimulate progressive change.
In the report by The Strait Times on 13 May 2010, a statement by Nancy Lim, the NAC’s assistant finance manager reveals the authorities’ critical misconception of theatre and the arts, claiming that “there is a wide range of topics” in the arts and that “we don’t have to go into the grey areas”.
But aren’t these “grey areas” precisely the province of the arts? What is the critical value of an arts scene which only performs staged readings of government rhetoric? The authorities appear to envision theatre only as a form of recital, determined only to fund productions that serve as pretty vignettes of creativity to populate our aspiring Renaissance City.
Next, the concomitant problem that comes with the problem of “alternative lifestyles” is that of “core values”. In an email to the arts community, poet-playwright Alfian Sa’at has expressed that “there has been no articulation of what Singapore’s ‘core values are’” and associated the term with “glittering generality”. Indeed, how can we even speak of an “alternative” with such confidence if the centre is not even defined? (Not that there is really a necessity for it.) The “core values” are a mythical and rhetorical construct that needs to be radically deconstructed.
In the combined statement by the arts community, it is expressed that there seems to be some confusion between “core values” and “mainstream values”. Effectively, the word “core” suggests a certain fixity that needs to be governed aggressively at all costs. Its very nature is steeped in the political. On the other hand, mainstream values can shift over time. In fact, why do we even need to designate such “core values”? And even if they do serve a functional purpose, why should it be the obligation of the arts to articulate such constructed values that don’t even serve as an accurate mirror of society?
Lastly, the flagrant demand that the arts abstain from works that criticise government policy is both impossible and dangerous. This brand of apolitical theatre that the authorities valorise simply does not exist. Particularly in a city-state where the government attains an omnipresence, is it remotely possible to examine the issues of society, culture or that of everyday life without any form of critique of government policy? The council curiously appears to be undermining the very influence of the state upon its people. Theatre does not reside in its own ivory tower and cannot exist without a context. There is no detour to social or cultural critique without the implication of government policy.
More importantly, this act of depoliticising theatre is inimical to the values of democracy that our society upholds. What is to happen if we were to lose this final bastion of criticality within a society that is already unapologetically censorial? This is a point that Alfian Sa’at has reinforced in the aforementioned email:
“Government is not beyond criticism. The mandate to govern is not equivalent to immunity from critique. If the citizenry has a right to vote, then it also has the right to express its opinions on the performance of the elected during their term. Reputation is built from one’s ability to counter (or even ignore) criticism, rather than one’s ability to silence it.”
Transparency and Accountability
In Heng’s response to TOC, he revealed that the company has met with NAC on several occasions over the years. Several of these “negotiations” resulted in the NAC’s logo being removed from all publicity materials, signalling the council’s desire not to be associated with the productions. In these instances, the funding remained intact.
More recently in March, the NAC warned the company that should it persist in doing plays “which promoted an alternative lifestyle, and which were contrary to the core values of society, or were critical of the Government, [its] funds would be cut”. The company subsequently requested for a meeting with the board but was told that it would not make a difference. There was essentially no right of appeal or recourse.
The company later received assurance that the funding would not be cut for the 2010 season, given that the company was staging revivals that had received funding previously. The contrary happened within a month.
Such accounts undeniably cast doubts upon the integrity of the NAC as an institution of public character. In the first instance, while what happened is clearly a lesser evil as opposed to cutting the funding outright, it is still a form of public deceit. Is this how the NAC ensures its accountability to the public? More crucially, it also reveals that the NAC possesses a clear awareness of the contradictions inherent in its approach towards arts funding, which it evidently attempts to keep out of public view.
Furthermore, why is there so much furtiveness in the council’s management of arts funding? Why are the funds, which in effect come from the tax-paying audience, disbursed in such an arbitrary fashion? How did the council come to decide upon these elusive funding guidelines in the first place?
The Conservative Renaissance
Perhaps the most befuddling aspect of this debacle is the awkward timing of the move. Companies like W!LD RICE have engaged in various forms of political theatre since its inception and rarely have any of these works provoked any form of public backlash. There appears to be no particular production in recent memory that could serve as a plausible trigger for such a reactionary move. The oft-mentioned The Important of Being Earnest can hardly compare with the company’s earlier works in terms of raising the hairs of fundamentalist crazies and The Campaign To Confer The Public Service Star On JBJ was staged way back in 2007. Particularly, why is funding being cut for the company’s tenth anniversary season which features revivals of old works that had previously received funding during their original runs?
Can it thus be inferred that it is the NAC and the government that have become more conservative? There are telling signs that they have. Last August, we saw the appointment of Benson Puah as the council’s CEO when he was already holding on to the same appointment in The Esplanade. On 12 May 2010, it was announced in TODAY that the NAC and The Esplanade, both led by the same man, will “explore a strategic partnership” to manage both the Victoria Theatre and the Drama Centre when The Esplanade takes over the management of both venues. Poet-playwright Ng Yi-Sheng has also posted a series of commentaries on the official Singapore Arts Festival blog (http://singartsfestival.wordpress.com/) on the recent developments concerning the festival which opens this weekend. Are we moving towards an arts scene that is gradually moulded to become more centralised and controlled?
The only Renaissance that appears to be happening is that of conservatism. The tools of oppression have been quietly reinvented to operate insidiously beneath a liberalising social and cultural scene. But the blatancy of the NAC’s recent statement signals the alarming ambitions of this conservative rebirth: it no longer seeks to function beneath the veil of euphemism and disguise, but aspires legitimisation as the righteous crusader, valiantly safeguarding a mythical set of “core values” that is made to possess us from within.
____________________________
By Ho Rui An
_________________________________________
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
And just what is “conservatism”?
Yes, arts should serve to explore grey areas and so on and so forth, but the quality of art isn’t dependent on how many left-wing, “liberalising” opinions it reflects, and the local artistes, especially people like Alfia’an Saat, are beginning to see the arts as the platform of the Left, which is just as inaccurate a conception as any that says that arts should be a platform for the Right.
And just to note: Rui An betrays her post-modern presumptions in her article. “Core Values” are not mythical; they are essential for the survival of society.
Aha. Und what are “Core Values”? I don’t believe that they are mythical, but as long as people just talk about “Core Values”, then everything can be a “Core Value”. Anything can be interpreted as supporting a “Core Value” or going against it. So what are these “Core Values”?
P.S. I am as anti-postmodernism as you are, but if you want to make “Core Values” essential for the survival of society, then you should not talk about them in such a way that no one can get an idea of what they are.
can TOC don’t support gay cause? has TOC been hijacked by gays to spread their lifestyle?
Strange that the whole thesis is based on the writer aking himself: “What on earth is alternative lifestyle”?
-
It is precisely why so many of us are apprehensive and wary of the gay and his agenda.
-
First they tell you they are the alternative to the norm. Then they say they are more creative and artistic than the norm.
-
And when one of its own does not things his way for reason of being an alternative form, they start questioning the the notion of alternative as if it is a label given by mainstream.
-
If you want to promote alternative, then stay out of the mainstream. You are lucky enough to get funding from mainstream to being alternative.
Has TOC been hijacked by gays?
-
Yes, since the arrival of one from abroad, particularly the UK.
-
The gay agenda has intensified since his arrival and appointment to TOC as its main editor covering International affairs.
-
Unfortunately, we do not get to hear too many international news but instead gay news one after another,
The two guys in the picture are fugly.
I think in life, it is all about choice. In light of this, it is also a choice for these people to lead an alternate lifestyle and try to promote it, so that it may be accepted as a norm.
Then again, people on the other side have their right to defend what is normal, the biological design of procreation.
Therefore i agree that it is perfectly fine for people who choose to be “different” or think they are “different” but unless these “different” people can undergo procreation through coitus, i highly doubt that society anywhere in the world would freely accept this as a norm.
The best we can do is accept and respect this choice. However this choice has to be an informed choice, weighing the alternate lifestyle pleasures and identity against the dangers of societal backlash, health and disease (STDs).
If it is about love, and the need to be loved, then i say our focus should be on building strong functional, normal families as the backbone of our society.
i think the author is missing a subtle difference between not supporting something and banning something.
By blaming the govt for not supporting it, it assumes that these arts groups are entitled to be supported in the first place and the govt has failed in its duty.
Is it true that govt has an obligation to fund all arts groups?
I think it’s perfectly fine for the govt not support everything under the sun. After all, there are limited resources. If there is something they want to support, they can entitled to give funds to it.
If there is a divergence in what the arts group want to produce and what the govt wants to support, so be it.
The arts community should find donors that fit with their programmes and offerings- instead of demanding that existing donors fit with their programs.
Nice article both part 1 & 2. But just so I understand this whole thing better.
Actually this whole ruckus came about because of the funding cuts, am I correct?
If that is the case, then seriously why is this even a debate?
By receiving funding, the organisation is beholden to the giver in this case the Government. The giver is free to give or cut funding as per what is within their rights and corresponding beliefs. There is really no right or wrong in this case.
Just like a Christian organisation which believes that homosexuality is a choice, you cannot expect the same organisation to donate to a gay group right?
We seem to be thinking that funding is a god given right to have access to. Any cuts of any amount is an act of evil. If I got my figures right, the funding was cut by $20,000 from 190 to 170? In that case it is below 11% absolute. It is not even a complete freeze out, why is this tyranny?
If the works that are produced can be sold to other countries regionally, then profits would come in and maybe funding becomes irrelevant…then we would have true arts without being beholden to anyone, would that not be the case?
If the claim is that Singapore’s audience does not want to pay and thus funding is required, then is corporate sponsorship route available? Or maybe the type of works need to reach a bigger audience thus, the quality of work needs to be better for it to travel?
Personally, I think it is silly that a ruckus of this proportion is kicked up over a 11% decrease in funding which in the first place was a bonus in terms of it’s existence.
To be completely free to pursue arts in it’s purest form, the various art groups need to first be profitable, then true freedom will come.
It is abit like the TV license nonsense whereby the official rationale for it is to fund programmes which maybe people do not want to watch?
After reading both articles, all I can ruefully say the author has made the fundamental mistake of using the picture within the second one, causing some to mistaken the author as spreading some “insidious GLBT agenda”, when he was advocating for the bigger agenda of freedom of expression without fear of reprisals.
Unfortunately, all I can say as long as the ruling party persists in its siege mentality and takes the stance that all other political ideals other than its own is anathema, such an atmosphere will continue to persist.
Say i give my son $100 every year for him to attend creative writing courses. This year, i tell my son, “hey this will be reduce to $80/-”.
My son now cries “what ? you are enforcing unreasonable censorship!” and cries foul…
WTF ? it is my $ and i can decide how much i want or do not want to give you..
Lu kow peh si meek ?
NAC, get a grip…
should be
IVan heng – get a grip of yourself and know your position in this.
Good Afternoon all,
In a healthy democracy. The role of the government in arts and culture should be strictly limited to the size of a postage stamp. Anything bigger spells trouble.
Besides from what we have been able to make out from the local arts scene; it has always been the SAME recepients, allocated by the SAME committee, using the SAME template and wonder no more why you get the SAME staid, trite and comatose inducing results.
Glad to see the government had distance themsleves from those who are promoting sickening alternative lifestyle.
I certainly do not want the tax money I had paid to go to such kind of freakish plays!
Ho Rui An: “What on earth are “alternative lifestyles”.
I’m surprised that the writer doesn’t even recognise that NAC is trying to be diplomatic by using this term.
Just like in the debate over the sexuality program is school, NAC is telling you: “Do not portray homosexuality as normal”.
The writer uses so many big words … “this perpetual staple of conservative discourse” … “It functions within a fundamentally decentered space” … “ascertaining its intentions with definite certitude” … “rhetorically conflated with malicious abnormality”.
Wow.
i think alot of us are missing the point here. It is not about the “arts” or the promotion of “alternative lifestyles” or “left wing/right wing”.
It is simply the right of the giver (i.e NAC) to decide how much they want to give to whoever they want for whatever reason. If Ivan baby, you want to pursue other kinds of artforms, you are free to look for $ somewhere else.
Tiok boh, you say ?
Homosexuality is not a form of ART…it is an abnormality and deformity, a sickness involving psychological issues, so there’s really no reason at all for NAC to support it!
The government had definitely made the right move and decision in this instance!
And the gay bashers are out again
A treatise on censorship and how the govt attempts to control the arts is now reduced to a single, issue – LBGTs and their horrifying gay agendas.
Wild Rice might be gay friendly but they are not the only one. If I remember from ST, a chinese theatre company got their funding increased even though last year they staged a play with a gay side story that received a viewer restriction rating.
So why the double standards? NAC can decide who they want to fund but they should be more consistent in their story. That is what this piece is about.
And this is not just about the funding cut; its more about the reason behind the cut which NAC so proudly held up as the banner for conservative values and morals, whatever they may be.
For all the Gemanis, Joes and Arix, – why not petition the govt to cut funding to any arts project that highlights or promotes the following:
Singlehood
Divorcees
Gambling
Aldultery
Addiction (of any kind)
Race and religious issues
Anti-govt sentiments
Anything against the MTL
Anything that criticises any govt agency…and the list goes on
The above listed are certainly mainstream ‘core values’ and discourse against the govt and its policies.Why not protest against plays that focus on them?
But no I guess u guys just LOVE your homophobic gay basher identity; its really such a convenient and easy excuse to condemn, insult and degenirate TOC, their writers and anyone else who dun share your opinion.
If u dislike this site so much, stop reading it.
If you have nothing new or constructive to contribute, save your effort and time and stop posting.
Or perhaps we should have a ‘reader restriction’ warning and rating? Then u know who and what to avoid and won’t be so offended and won’t be exposed to such bad influences that may just turn you alternative.
“For all the Gemanis, Joes and Arix, – why not petition the govt to cut funding to any arts project that highlights or promotes the following:
Singlehood
Divorcees
Gambling
Aldultery
Addiction (of any kind)”
I agree with you on this point. If any art project promotes these, including homosexuality, govt funds should not be allowed.
I watched this Earnest Production last year, and honestly, I thought it was weird. The make-you-cringe kind of weird.
The lady characters are still “female” in the story context, but donning male clothings and talking in male voices, which is just to me, weird for the sake of being weird and gay for the sake of being gay.
And that is why I don’t like Wild Rice, even though I believe in homosexual equality. I feel they play right into the usual stereotypes of campy, loud, blaring trumpets.
So honestly again, I hope Ivan does some reflections.
What is the issue? The smart people are already creating their own cultural and arts heritage under their own steam.
Open your eyes. Look! Do you really think they will wait for you?
Come, come.
Those who still rely on grants have been doing so, if you notice for the last 10 to 15 years and yet despite all the infusion in its varied forms ranging from government patronage to frebbie pulbicity, they have not learnt how to either prosper or to discover the imagination needed to stand on their two feet.
This should provoke us all to ask the question: why are we putting good money into a black hole?
Trust me. The best thing our government should do is cut their funding.
I am reminded, Sparta was strong not by a cause of accident. It was strong bc it did not tolerate those who pined in the face of adversity. There are lessons to be learnt there.
As for us, we resolutely refuse all forms of government funding. We dont want it. If possible govt should remove itself from the arts and cultural scene. Its poison!
Sloo,
Yes, your wonderful accusation of “gay-bashing” again. I won’t speak for genami or Joe, but I’ll say that my comment was directed at a general observation. You came here, saw my comment, and presumed a priori that I was talking about LGBT when I didn’t even mention the term in my post. Just tell me where I mentioned “gay agendas”? LGBT is not the only form of “liberalising” there is.
If a project does promote adultery, gambling or divorce, I will be against it, but as far as I know, no project has done so yet. (My friend is a member of WILD RICE, so I get the invites to all their events.)
And inasmuch as I am critical of the government, being anti-govt for the sake of sounding “cool” or “enlightened” does not much appeal to me. I will not call for the censorship of anti-government pieces because the govt needs to be criticised, but an excessive proportion of anti-govt pieces does show a marked lack of creativity and objectivity, and “biting the hand that feeds you”.
I don’t dislike the site or its purpose; I just don’t think that it is fulfilling its purpose by being overwhelmingly leftist. I dislike certain articles, and I like others.
Perhaps your whole life revolves around the gay issue; mine certainly doesn’t.
sloo
are you so paranoid that every comment that is critical of Wild Rice’s objection to the cut in funding is deem as “gay bashers”?
Nowhere did i mention in my post about content of their productions.
You said it yourself that “chinese theatre company got their funding increased even though last year they staged a play with a gay side story that received a viewer restriction rating”. Who were bashing them then ?
My point simply was that NAC, being the fund giver, have every right to increase or cut the funds to any company that they deem fit. Double standards or not, it is not for the receipent to cry foul over something that is “granted” to them…
joe
I do not think your analogy of you giving your son money is appropriate. See ‘diagram’ below.
People > tax > govt money > NAC money > Grant to WILD RICE
Your father and son only has 2 steps, which I think, translates to the last two… . The problem is that your money shouldn’t be yours, and WILD RICE cannot be your son if it is a proper analogy. Not sure if I am making sense…
Let’s say that If I were to try to keep to your proposed analogy, it’d you as a babysitter (not the father), getting money from your ‘boss’, and distributing it to their children.
Now, what ‘rights’ do you have to reduce the pocket money then?
Sloo,
-
You are missing the point when you call for the Gemamis, Joes and Arixs to ask the government to cut funding for any arts project that highlights or promotes those categories you mentioned. We are talking about a sustained effort by Ivan, using a government-funded channel, to promote a one-dimensional approach in his attempt to establish an alternative to the norms of society.
-
I feel the government has been patient enough in seeing his works as one-off projects since the establishment of Wild Rice. There are far too many similar and identical ones to continue to see them as one-off projects.
-
For those who may not be fully aware of what Ivan has been propagating and promoting, let me share some of his works with you for you to have a better picture of what I am talking about.
-
We surely must have heard of some of his better known projects like M Butterfly, Emily of Emerald Hill, Dim Sum Dollies & Animal farm.
-
These are themes that either serve to drive home the gay agenda using gay propaganda, or to poke fun at the government, both of which were the reasons given for the cut in funding.
-
His lesser works include:
-
1. The Visit of the Tai Tai: a story of one being wronged in his early years only to seek out vengeance at all cost in his later years.
-
2. Landmarks – Asian Boys Vol.2: well, the title speaks for itself with its gay and pedophilic connotations.
-
3. Ang Tau Mui: about an ‘auntie’ who disregards conventions and sometimes the law, and is not above the temptations of the flesh. The argument is that it is her life after all, to decide as she pleases (sounds familiar, this line of reasoning?).
-
4. The Woman in A Tree on the Hill: explores love, oppression, violence and freedom (sounds familiar?). It attempts to debunk the ‘myths’ and archetypes surrounding Man and Woman, subverts ‘pre-conceived’ notions of the age-old battle of the sexes and makes a case for reclaiming an individual perspective. All these is set against the backdrop of a global environmental HOLOCAUST. Strong message don’t you think?
-
5. An Occasional Orchid: is a story of Zoe, a Malaysian cross-dresser, and, Joe, a medical student in London, experiencing new freedoms away from his Malaysian hometown and his parent’s watchful eyes. The message is clear enough.
-
Let readers be the judge why the funding for Wild Rice has to be slashed and why I feel Ivan should thank his lucky stars that he is now given the opportunity to show his talent outside that of the gay agenda.
-
His earlier works like Cinderel-lah! should be his new focus. It was a project that connected with Singaporeans at large, adults and children alike. This was the reason for the government funding. Ivan has lost it and he can only blame himself.
Hi lobo76,
thanks for your comment. I have posted some comments earlier to rebut some points made by others but for some strange reason, TOC is taking ages to moderate (is this a case of censorship ?)
Coming back to your analaogy of babysitter and son. I think the line has to be drawn somewhere as to who has the “rights” to give or not to give. In arguing that NAC funds come from tax payers $, NAC therfore does not have the to cut the grant to Wild Rice, i think there is a flaw in the argument here. I put it to you that just as much as there are people who thinks the grants should not be reduced, there are also just as many taxpayers who think that Wild Rice should not get any $. Were their consent sought in the first place when Wild Rice gave the grants?
So what is the best and most pragmatic approach ? Leave it to the guardian of the funds (i.e NAC) to decide. Of all the parties involved here, Wild Rice has certainly the least grounds, if any at all, to cry foul …
joe,
My point wasn’t really that ‘People’ (taxpayers) should decide who to give the funds. Taxpayers don’t decide anything about which funds go where. I wanted to highlight the People as the source of the funds because it is for THEM that the funds are supposed to be used for. Not to used as threats just so that the Arts can follow their boss’s preferences.
I just had an interesting thought…
Alternative lifestyle (if we used a very limited definition) = gay = bad (from the perspective of some somewhat rigid people)
So Alternative parties (aka opposition parties) = ?
=)
lobo76
thanks for engaging me in this.
Just as it is presumptous for us to think that NAC reduces the funds because of the content of Wild Rice’s productions, it is also presumptous to say that NAC cuts the grants to “follow their boss’s preferences”. Could it be possible that NAC is following the wishes of the majority of “people” who are opposed to the what they have been seeing. Maybe yes or maybe no.
We don’t know for sure, do we ?
Perhaps, Wild Rice should just go and find some other other willing sponsors to fund whatever projects they want to show and stop implying unfair treatment. The grants they have been receving from NAC in the past years may have been more than other arts socities. Was it unfair, then?
lobo76
i am reminded of barry manilow’s song “bermuda’s triangle” lyrics..
“… Alternative parties ? Not so bad” !!
Ha ha !!
Wait a minute! The song also say it makes people disappear – IT IS bad!
-
And Lobo76, the kind of ‘social’ service the gay does for the country is no where near those of the opposition politicians.
-
So, sorry, ‘alternative’ cannot be thus generalized.
Take it from the Daddy of Singapore, the liaison officer, and I repeat it here.
-
["Those who still rely on grants have been doing so, if you notice for the last 10 to 15 years and yet despite all the infusion in its varied forms ranging from government patronage to frebbie pulbicity, they have not learnt how to either prosper or to discover the imagination needed to stand on their two feet"]: Singaporedaddy.
-
Very much like the you-know-what community, still very much a cry-baby after all the support it has been getting all these years.
Singaporeans love to discriminate:
1. High flying law professor’s hate speech in Parliament (anti-gay)
2. Mother of high flying law professor’s orchestrate coup of woman’s advocacy group (anti-gay)
3. Megachurch pastor have coffee with ISD after sermon. (anti-Buddhist)
4. Couple distribute seditious comic booklets (anti-Muslim)
5. Residents cry foul when government builds worker dorms near their homes. (anti-migrant worker, racist)
and the list goes on.
It doesn’t matter which group you discriminate. Discrimination is discrimination. Nobody wins in the discrimination game. One day you too will be discriminated against because of your age, gender, sexual orientation, academic/work qualifications, race, language, religion, etc.
Thanks friendly bros liason officer for standing up for is all the silent majority. I have nothing further to add. What he said sums up the situation nicely.
jd
Interesting, i have never thought of it that way. I have always thought that it was simply everyone’s entitled to having his opinions about issues…
Another way of looking at your list could be :
1. US university dropped high flying law professor’s to speak (anti-anti-gay ?)
2. Mother of high flying law professor’s booed at AWARE EAGM (anti-anti-gay ?)
3. Megachurch pastor retract statements after Buddhists complained to ISD anti-anti-Buddhist ?)
4. Couple jailed for distribute seditious comic booklets after Muslims complain to police (anti-anti-Muslim)
joe
We don’t know for sure, do we ?
yep, we don’t. They arbitrarily set some ‘core values’ (which I tot as ‘boss preferences’) and stuck by it. There is no explanation of what exactly these ‘core values’ are nor how they came about, thus I see them as arbitrary.
-
Was it unfair, then?
I don’t know if they are a major benefactor of the funds. But certainly it seems unfair to promise one thing and then go back on that promise one month later.
The only fair reasons to cut fundings are,
- NAC itself got less funds (can’t say that if MPs are going to get pay rise, can we?)
- despite consistent funding, the attendance of it’s shows were dismal. (anyone knows if this is the case)
Talking about ‘core values’ and ‘alternative lifestyles’ WITHOUT defining them, imo, IS unfair.
In fact, they seem to be ‘excuses’ to rile people like gemami and others, so that no one looks that the part where the article pointed out that NAC also demanded that the works cannot criticize the govt.
I do not see this as related to Arts at all, hence ‘not fair’.
thank lobo for sharing your views. Just as much as i will try understand alittle bit of what you are saying, i hope you also understand my position.
Anyway, i gotta go back to work. lunch time over
Gemami,
We are talking about a sustained effort by Ivan, using a government-funded channel, to promote a one-dimensional approach in his attempt to establish an alternative to the norms of society.
Are you implying that artists should dabble in everything before they should be govt funded? What about a theatre group that focus solely on whole family values? Should they too be cut from funding because they are too single tracked?
And here I thought, specialization is usually the way to become better at what you do… hmmm..?
imo, there should not be any worry about any one artist focusing on only one thing. There are plenty of other artists out there who will ‘balance’ the Arts world.
Just be acutely but also wisely “AWARE” that’s all!
Oh yes Lobo76, we will balance ourselves out but then again can the gay community live with such a balance?
[“Talking about ‘core values’ and ‘alternative lifestyles’ WITHOUT defining them, imo, IS unfair.
In fact, they seem to be ‘excuses’ to rile people like gemami and others…”]: Lobo76.
-
Come on Lobo76. We are a law-abiding and civilized people. The ‘Core-Values’ are what govern the peace and tranquility of the state. They are manifested in the many areas of family life, work life and life as a whole. Remember my argument on ‘majority rules’?. Very simply, there is to be a mode of application with a set of ‘general’ values that are constant with the natural flow of being.
-
This does not mean there is no room for those who may find themselves falling outside these governing ‘core-values’. It just means that they have to proof to the larger society that they can co-exist with ‘core-values’ that are very different to their own. Why is this so hard to understand and accept?
-
You want to challenge the ‘core-values’, fine, but there is a way to go about it which certainly does not include ‘kow-peh-kow-bu’.
-
Now, what is alternative lifestyle? It’s either you’re being mischievous or you are deliberately feigning ignorance. Never mind, the examples I gave on the many projects which Ivan had undertaken, clearly presents you the alternative agenda which he hopes to bring to a conservative Singapore society.
-
Are you artistic enough to understand the underlying and implied messages of his plays and works?
His is a constant and sustained effort to keep at one message.
-
I won’t fault him if the works are supported by his own funds. He is free to be artistic in his own way and to tell his own story. But when it involves public funds, funds taken out from monies contributed by all segments of society, then it is only expected, and fair, that the government has to take a relook to ensure that the core-values of society are not undermined, by whatever name or disguise.
-
I am sure you are not so blind to reason that being artistic is the over-riding factor for the government to misuse public funds on projects that stabs at the core-values of society?
gemami
Why not? If their plays predominately includes ‘gay’ characters, then the balance is have shows that includes ‘heterosexual’ characters. Sorry, I don’t watch plays at all, so I can’t quote you any. Surely there are shows where the main characters get married and live happily ever after … or died tragically together?
Actually, Romeo and Juliet (since I did literature in sec school), comes to mind. Do you see gays complaining about those?
p.s it’s almost underage sex by the way since Juliet iirc is supposedly 14
Ah, Lobo76, do you speak as a gay or as one who is sympathetic toward the gay cause? How many gays have you known or know?
-
I have known, and still know, no less than three dozen gay friends. I am making more gay friends where I work. Unfortunately, the gay friends I am seeing these days are the very sick ones, the ones with loads and loads of regrets for the lifestyle choices they had made during their healthy years.
-
I am not going to associate anything with this group of gays and bi-sexuals suffice to say they were too indiscriminate in their decision-making department. Can you continue to give the kind of love the gay community is asking for?
-
Before you start to jump, let me answer my own question. Yes, I can give the love that is being sought after. But I will reserve my loving for the truly afflicted gay person, who is rejected by society for being who he is, for the uncertainty which he must surely feel and the constant bashing and ridicule from friends and foes alike.
-
However, I cannot bring myself to ‘love’ the gay who is promiscuous, loud and carelessly promoting his sort of lifestyle choice using as proxies, the real suffering gay.
-
I sincerely hope you are listening harder. I think you have been listening too hard on the voices that speak up against the gay while paying practically no attention to some of the senseless mutterings of the gay and his supporters. This is not the way forward.
-
You want to be heard but you forget that you have to listen as well.
-
And, are you suggesting that the ‘heteros’ have to constantly churn out ‘counter-plays’ each time a gay play is made? Why would the government want to do that when it can simply stop all funding and count their CPF money to sleep?
Gemami,
The ‘Core-Values’ are what govern the peace and tranquility of the state.
That’s a very broad definition. Certainly I would think ‘inclusiveness’ and ‘tolerant of diversity’ will aid in peace and tranquility of the state. But, those are probably not the ‘core values’ you had in mind, right?
Therefore, if ‘core values’ are used in a debate, they have to be defined. If not, I certainly have no idea which ones are involved.
-
Are you artistic enough to understand the underlying and implied messages of his plays and works?
No. I am not a very artist person. Hell, I hardly listen to music other than a very small number of soundtracks. But if being artistic is a requirement to understand the message, then it surely is Art, and thus should be valid to draw funds from NAC.
The message itself is irrelevant unless (for example) it is calling for us to kill one another.
-
You want to challenge the ‘core-values’ … the core-values of society are not undermined…stabs at the core-values of society
Again, core values HAVE to be defined.Because, promoting one core value may undermine/stab another.
-
Now, what is alternative lifestyle?
No.. I do understand which alternative lifestyle he is trying to remove the discrimination from. The point is which one NAC is referring to when it say it is part of their guideline? Why can’t they (NAC) be specific? As mentioned in the article, being vegetararian (I luv this comparison) can be an alternative lifestyle as well.
Lobo76,
-
You’re absolutely spot on, it is VERY broad.
-
See the hill you have to climb?
-
It will help a little if you understand art a little. Then perhaps you won’t be so quick to jump to the gay’s defense.
gemami,
See the hill you have to climb?
Of course…I see it. It’s so broad that I just wondered if you realised we are all on the SAME hill (named ‘core values’), looking up from different sides?
If you understood that we are standing on the same hill, you won’t be so quick to knock the hill flat.
NAC is obliged to prioritise financial support away from artistic projects which:
a) erode the core moral values of society, including, but not limited to the promotion of permissive lifestyles and depictions of obscenity or graphic sexual conduct;
b) denigrate or debase a person, group or class of individuals on the basis of race or religion, or serve to create conflict or misunderstanding in our multicultural and multi-religious society;
c) disparage or demean government bodies, public institutions or national leaders, and/or subvert the nation’s security or stability.
–
Why can’t you make plays that have PAP approved themes when you want to take their money.
You can try to get funding from alternative sources if you want to make alternative plays.
I’m surprised that in free-wheeling free-enterprise survival-of-the-fittest Singapore there is a National Arts Council. Certainly it is a welcome sign of 1st-world sophistication that artistic creativity is encouraged. Especially since such expressions of culture have little public support.
Yet I am appalled that NAC would seek in any way to impose a de-facto censorship of any sort in support of “core values” (which seems to be code for the nastiest sort of political and lifestyle conformity). Of course, it’s hardly a novel manipulation. Communist Russia and Nazi Germany were very adept at mobilizing and contriving the arts to re-inforce their core values, no? Of course, the almost religious ideological certainties and artistic paralyses didn’t exactly create successful, healthy, and adaptable societies.
Values and virtue are useless if they cannot withstand challenge. If you eliminate all opportunities for vice, can u really have the sort of true virtue that will get u to heaven? If u don’t allow new or alternative values a means of vigourous expression, can u really say that inherited or prevailing values are truly the best ones?
Imposed conformity may allow mainstreamers to feel smug and comfortable at one point in time. But times change. And should be allowed– even encouraged– to change.
Lobo76,
-
Extremely glad to hear that WE are on the same (core values) hill. So what’s with the ‘alternative values’? you building your own hill on a hill.
-
Now you are thinking artistically. Remember Ivan’s play titled: The Woman in A Tree on a Hill?
-
It’s exactly what we are talking about here.
-
You are making extremely good progress. Keep it up.
RedDotWong,
-
You must be kidding when you expressed bewilderment at the existence of NAC. A ‘free-enterprise’ does not mean an individual, or any individual body can do things as freely as it wants. Very much like ‘freedom of speech’ does not mean we can go about speaking freely without consideration for the consequences of our utterances. If not, very soon, we will be (as human tendency dictates) calling each other names and cursing fathers and mothers in the name of freedom.
-
This is where ‘core values’ comes into play. It simply means a set of values that is observed by the state for the sake of keeping peace and harmony. I have said it many times before. It is this set of ‘values’ that the minority communities always seek to bring down so that they can pursue and put in place their own sets of ‘values’. This is where the fight begins and this is where all sides will struggle with.
-
I agree with you that values and virtues are useless if they cannot withstand challenges. But you have to see it both ways, that is, the challenger and the challenged. The ‘alternative values’ challenging the ‘core values’ have to also withstand the onslaught from the other side, don’t you think?
-
So, if in keeping with the mainstream ‘core values’, majority feels that the ‘alternative values’ are no good for the larger society, then why isn’t the challenger retreating to reconsider themselves and their position? So you see, the whole question falls back on you doesn’t it?
-
I am always very wary of the gay using religion as one of its war-cry. Religion has been around, will be around and is already a part of the ‘core values’ incorporated into mainstream society. Religion is not the only obstacle standing in the way of the gay’s push for acceptance.
-
I have suggested before that the gay groups in Singapore adopt a different approach to gaining acceptance in Singapore. They have to recognize that our society is very different to that of the West and Europe. We have many taboos, governed largely by conservative values, cultures, traditions and observances.
-
Continuously banging your heads against any of these is not going to work for you because these are steeply entrenched like skin to bones in our society. The ‘Western’ approach will not work because the Asian mentality, shaped collectively by its culture, tradition and belief, is harder to break down.
-
For the sake of the gay community, I ask that it takes the first step to recognizing itself as a threat to the ‘core values’ of society and work itself up from there. For a start, being loud is the first mistake and will only set you back many steps.
-
The community has to start to show that it is contributing to society. Ivan Heng started off well enough, staging plays which connected with Singaporeans without posing any threat to them. Hossan Leong is doing very well and so too with Dick Lee, Kumar and some others.
-
Former NMP Siew also started off well enough until his involvement in the Aware saga.
-
Now if you recognize all these, then you will begin to see how you can go forward, but also how a turn of event can set you back to where you started.
-
Once Singaporeans become warmer to these representative members of the community by the contributions they are making to the society as a whole, then I guarantee the small walls will start to fall and in time the bigger walls will follow.
-
For now, mainstream opinions, which you are constantly bombarded with, must be interpreted correctly. They may seem smug and arrogant most times but they do represent the fear, the uncertainty and the anxiety the larger society have toward a community which they see as having no rules besides the ‘free to love’ pledge.
-
Think about it.