NATIONAL ARTS COUNCIL BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Acting Minister for Information and the Arts (BG George Yong-Boon Yeo): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The proposed National Arts Council Bill seeks to establish a statutory board which will enable the Government to better support the development of the arts in Singapore. The development of the arts in Singapore is an important part of the next phase of our overall national development.

The Arts Council will serve as a catalyst. It will support arts groups directly and indirectly and encourage other organisations and members of the public to do likewise. It will promote widespread appreciation of the arts in Singapore and encourage public recognition of artistic achievements in our society.

Although the Government will give full backing to the Arts Council, it is very important that the private sector, both private citizens and corporations, also give their full support. For the arts to flourish, we need a tripartite working relationship between thearts community, the private sector and the Government. It will be the job of the Arts Council to help build up this tripartite relationship. Much has already been done but much more needs to be done.

As a hub city of the world, our ambition should be to make Singapore an international centre of the arts. If the arts are only by Singaporeans for Singaporeans we will at best be mediocre. Our basic approach must therefore be to supplement local talent with foreign talent, especially Asian talent, and target not just the Singaporean market but also the region. In this way, we will also make our contribution to the development of the arts in the region. We should invite eminent foreigners in the arts world to help us in the Arts Council either as members or as advisors.

Structure of the Council

Sir, in April 1989, the Advisory Council on Culture and the Arts recommended the formation of the Arts Council. The Advisory Council proposed that the Arts Council should be a company to give it maximum operational flexibility. Such an agency need not be subject to civil service constraints.

Instead of a non-profit company, we now propose to form the Arts Council as a statutory board. This will better reflect its public purpose and national character. A statutory board formed by Parliament will enjoy higher public status than a company.

The Government will give maximum autonomy to the Arts Council. It will formulate its own personnel policies, so that the right people can be engaged, retained and developed. There is a shortage of trained and experienced arts administrators in Singapore, a shortage that is beginning to retard the development of the arts. The Arts Council will help to build up such a core of administrators to meet the growing needs of the arts sector.

In addition to Government financial support, the Arts Council will be free to raise its own revenue. An endowment fund, called the Singapore Arts Endowment Fund, will be formed under the Bill for the Arts Council to receive donations from the public. Interest from this fund will be used to help arts groups and to organise arts activities. The Bill also gives the Arts Council the power to form companies and to participate in joint ventures.

Membership of the Council

Sir, the Arts Council will comprise a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and 10 to 25 other members. To carry out its public mission well, the membership must be broad-based. We will need representatives from the arts community, the private sector and the public sector. We have to strike a balance between supporting art for art's sake and subjecting art to the test of the market.

To ensure that the Arts Council is well-advised on matters pertaining to the arts in Singapore and the rest of the world, the Bill enables the Council to appoint advisory committees. They need not all be composed of Singaporeans. We should also include foreigners who can help us. These committees will cover the major fields, including the literary arts, the visual arts and the performing arts.

Absorption of staff and property

The Arts Council will absorb the staff and property of the Arts Division of the Ministry of Information and the Arts; the National Theatre Trust, which is a statutory board; and the Singapore Cultural Foundation, an endowment fund now under the Ministry. The National Arts Council Bill provides for the repeal of the National Theatre Trust Act.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.38 pm until 3.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, the GPC on Information and the Arts supports the establishment of the National Arts Council. As a statutory board, the Arts Council will enjoy flexibility in its operation and autonomy in its finance and administration. On the other hand, the Arts Council is accountable to Parliament through the Acting Minister.

Sir, let me offer some general observations about the promotion of the arts in Singapore. I hope these observations are useful to the National Arts Council and perhaps even to the Ministry. In the development of the arts, we need to strike a certain balance between conflicting interests. The first is about the role of the Government. The Government should give maximum assistance to arts organisations and artists. The assistance can be in the form of provision of arts facilities, training of artistic talent, financial and administrative support. However, such Government assistance does not confer on Government officials the right to interfere in the artistic creation. Interference will only stifle creativity. The arts produced under the bureaucratic system are normally rigid, unnatural or even lifeless.

The second balance concerns the role of the private enterprises and corporations. Incentives must be given to encourage more private enterprises and corporations to participate in the promotion of the arts. On the other hand, we must make sure there is no over-commercialisation of the arts. In a free market economy, purchases of art works by private enterprises and corporations at higher prices constitute a form of material incentive to the artists. The artists, however, must continue to be motivated by the desire to achieve artistic excellence and should not allow themselves to be dictated by monetary consideration.

The third concerns foreign competition. Every effort must be made to train localartists so as to raise the standard of their works. Nevertheless, this should not lead us into protectionism and the creation of a closed-door mentality against foreign competition. Foreign competition will help broaden the vision of the local artists and bring about more diverse and more dynamic local artistic activities. Foreign competition will also inspire local artists to set their sights beyond the national boundary and venture into the international arts scene.

Sir, next, let me make two specific comments on the Bill. Firstly, financial grants from the Government. I understand from the Bill that the assets and funds from the National Theatre Trust, the Singapore Cultural Foundation and the Arts Division under the Ministry will be transferred to the Council to set up the Singapore Arts Endowment Fund. I take it that the Government will also provide operating grants annually to the Council. Could the Minister inform the House what is the annual grant to be provided to the Council? I have checked the 1991/92 Budget and the recurrent expenditure allocated under the Arts Programme for FY 1990 was $4.16 million, and the recurrent expenditure estimated for FY 1991 was $7.19 million. The sums are really very small. In fact, these sums are much smaller than the recurrent expenditure allocated under the Parks Programme. The recurrent expenditure allocated for the Parks Programme for FY 1990 was $31.63 million and for FY 1991, it was $34.69 million. In other words, the recurrent expenditure allocated for the Arts Programme accounted for less than 22% of the expenditure allocated for the Parks Programme.

For the Arts Council to be the "national vehicle for the arts programme", a much higher financial grant is required from the Government. While I understand that the Council will seek financial grants from the private sector in the form of donations and sponsorships, the Government needs to set an example. Here, may I make a suggestion. One possible source of finance is from the Bukit Turf Club and the Singapore Totalisator Board. Could the Minister obtain a firm commitment from these twoorganisations for their financial contributions to the Arts Council? If our objective is to ensure adequate financial resources for the promotion of the arts in Singapore, it does not matter whether the money is from the oil companies or from gambling activities.

Secondly, appointment of Council Members. I read in the newspaper that the Acting Minister has announced the appointment of the Chairman. We have no quarrel with the appointment of Prof. Tommy Koh as the Chairman. I personally think that he is the right choice. The Bill also provides for the post of the Vice-Chairman and 10 to 25 other Council Members. I hope the Minister will consult our GPC on the nomination of the Council Members. The GPC will, in turn, consult its Resource Panel. In this way, the Ministry and the GPC can work together for the promotion of the arts in Singapore.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, I must say that eventually and finally arts is about to take its rightful place in our society. I do not suppose there is any need for me to go into the reasons why food for the spirit is now necessary, now that Singaporeans have been provided with food for the body. I must assume that this is supported and accepted by all.

Sir, as the National Arts Council (NAC) will be the national vehicle through which the food for the spirit will be provided, I fully support this Bill. However, from another perspective, this Bill is only a shell to contain the appropriate policies for the advancement of the arts in Singapore. Eventually, how effective it will be depends on the substance and quality of its policies and its efforts, and not its form. It is in this context that I would like to raise several issues. One, the Arts Council appears to be a successor to the National Theatre Trust (NTT). I hope that it will not be a mere continuation of the National Theatre Trust. Since its establishment, the NTT has not been very effective in promoting and advancing the arts on a broad basis. It has organised many cultural functions and, in the process, has become another arts organisation - no different from the rest, albeit bigger, better organised and perhaps with more financial muscles.

Therefore, I hope that one of the Arts Council's early tasks will be to review the policies, regulations, practices and procedures affecting us and the promotion of artsin Singapore today. Many of the policies were formulated years ago and may no longer be relevant in our present context. In this respect, perhaps it could update the views and recommendations expressed in the Report of the Advisory Council on Culture and the Arts, done in 1989, and proceed from there.

Sir, another point is that I hope the National Arts Council should not be involved in organising any artistic activities as provided for in clause 5 of the Bill. The Arts Council should be the umbrella body for all arts organisations in Singapore. By all means, provide the infrastructure, facilities, the policy framework, financial and other forms of assistance, but the Arts Council should not compete with the arts organisations by the organisation of artistic activities. It should encourage and promote, but not organise them. I have my doubts about the effectiveness of this policy.

Further, would the Council not organise activities as dictated by what the Government of the day wants? In other words, such activities could very often be termed as propaganda and, in the end, this could be counter-productive. Here, I would like to propose that a hands-off approach might be the best. There is also another reason for the Arts Council to stick to its main function of being the umbrella body. From an overview, its main concern with the policy to encourage and promote the organisation of activities, the Arts Council could provide seed money and other forms of financial assistance to the many deserving arts organisations, especially in their early years. We have already seen some good results of this policy. Examples which come readily to mind are the Substation and some of the more well-known performing arts groups. More of this type of assistance will be helpful.

Sir, on the financial side, arts expenditure, unfortunately, is very often deemed as expenditure without financial returns. Perhaps, there may be good returns eventually but, from a purely financial perspective, it would be too risky an investment. Therefore, I could see that, in later years, budgetary allocationfrom the Government will always be a thorny issue. Hence, I would like to express the hope that the Arts Council be given adequate funds to fulfil its main responsibility. I also hope that the Government will not view this Bill as privatisation of the arts and thereafter leave it to the private sector and the general public to support the arts.

I agree that the private sector should and must support the arts but to expect it to carry the greater part of the financial burden is asking for too much, especially when the public and the private sectors are also called upon to contribute to education, the poor, the underprivileged, the physically handicapped and all other kinds of charity.

Yet arts expenditure can be a bottomless pit. Therefore, I believe that this financial burden should be a shared partnership between the Government and the public. In this respect, I would like to forward this suggestion, and that is, to give double tax exemption to individuals donating to the Arts Council. I stress only individuals and not companies for a good reason. Firstly, such double tax exemption would encourage contributions by individuals at the community level, that means by individuals themselves and not through their organisation, and this should be the case since arts is really for everyone.

Secondly, the loss of tax revenue from the Government's viewpoint will also not be too great since individual tax rates are progressive, going up to a maximum rate of 32%. Hence, as an example, for those at the marginal 15% tax rate who are given a double tax exemption, it will only benefit them up to 30% which means that, in actual fact, for every dollar they contribute, they have to contribute 70 cents of their own money while the Inland Revenue Department contributes 30 cents. Even this, forexample, is lesser than the 31% that is being enjoyed by companies which contribute to institutions of a public character. I think this suggestion is worth considering even from the financial viewpoint.

Finally, clause 9 of the Bill gives the Minister the power to direct the Council. Itseems rather unnecessary in the light of paragraph 5 of the First Schedule that the Minister has absolute power to revoke the appointment of any Council Member. And this is also not consistent with the oft-repeated comment that arts development should be left to the people within some framework. However, I am not advocating the removal of this clause but I feel that a clarification of how this power is to be used would be helpful to dispel misgivings. Sir, I would be grateful if the Acting Minister could comment on these issues.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

The establishment of the proposed National Arts Council will be a very important milestone in our Next Lap towards spiritual development. It also signals the uplifting of the status of the arts. I feel that we should be proud of the fact that we are able, in a matter of about 20 years of nation building to move a step forward from materialistic development, to spiritual development. One of our long-term development objectives is to build Singapore into a more gracious and cultured society. The National Arts Council will play a very important role in this aspect.

Under this Bill, the National Arts Council will have to shoulder very heavy responsibilities, just as the old Chinese saying goes: "The burden is heavy and the road is long." The Arts Council will be an autonomous organization. It will take the form of a statutory board. In other words, it will enjoy more flexibility than a Government department in carrying out its activities. And the input that it will receive will be nation wide. So I believe it will be in a better position to reflect the desire and hopes of our people in the development of arts in Singapore. But I believe that the Arts Council will also have another basic mission, that is not only to satisfy the desire of the people but also to preserve and promote the various Asian traditional arts and to facilitate the development of a unique Singaporean culture. Only by so doing that we would be able to maintain our traditions and our national spirit, which is needed to face up to the world in the face of very strong influence from the West.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the development of the arts is within the realm of spiritual development, which in turn is a very important thing for us to do. This cannot be left to the market forces alone to decide. Take, for example, we want to prevent our society from going fully Westernised and preserve and promote our traditional arts. That certainly requires very strong determination and effort. Those who are involved in this effort should be given not only moral support but also strong financial support.

The Chairman-designate of the Arts Council, as we know, is our Ambassador-at-large, Prof. Tommy Koh. I believe we all have full confidence in Prof. Koh and it is hoped that under his leadership the National Arts Council will be able to effectively carry out its duties and to maximise its potential so that arts could be fully developed in Singapore. At the same time, I am sure those who are concerned in the development of the arts in Singapore would also like to know how the Arts Council is going to appoint its Chief Executive Officer and the 10 to 25 Council members as provided for under the Bill. In our multi-racial, multi-cultural society, it goes without saying that the members of the Council should be as representative as possible.

For the Arts Council to effectively carry out its duty, apart from good leadership, it must also have good financial and manpower support. I believe the staff of the National Theatre Trust and also some of the staff from the Arts Division in the Ministry of Information and the Arts would form the basic staff of the Arts Council. The question is how many staff will the Council have. And whether they are adequate.

Another point that I wish to speak on concerns the financial resources of the Arts Council. The setting up of an endowment fund would ensure that the Arts Council has enough funds to carry out its activities. However, I believe that if we want to raise sufficient money for this endowment fund, it would take some time. So I hope that the Government will take the lead by giving an initial grant to this Arts Council so that it could have a good start. I believe the private sector would also respond positively. Recently, a company donated $1 million to the Substation. From this, we can see that we would have good support from the private sector in the development of arts in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri (Aljunied GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.

The formation of the National Arts Council is a timely one. It marks the realisation of Singaporean artists and arts organisations for a central body to provide the necessary support and guidance in the development of arts in Singapore. The NAC can indeed become a strong cultural catalyst towards this end.

Arts in Singapore has seen a steady growth in the last three decades. We have passed the days of the Aneka Ragam Rakyat of the early 60s. Singaporeans are now being treated to several cultural festivals and events. For example, we can now witness the music and drama festivals. The arts festival has always been an important cultural calendar in Singapore. Our artists have also been given much encouragement and motivation through the various literary competitions like the short story and drama writing competitions. Local recognition of their work is made through the awards of the Cultural Medallions. In fact, several of our literary figures have received regional recognition by being recipients of the ASEAN Cultural and Communication Awards. All these point to the fact that there is no dearth of cultural activities in Singapore. If one cares to browse through the Straits Times weekend guideline on cultural activities, one finds quite a good list of these events. They include films, dances, theatres, concerts, art shows, talks and workshops being held at the various cultural venues. Perhaps the term "cultural desert" is slowly becoming a misnomer in Singapore.

Having dispelled this myth that Singapore is lacking in cultural activities, we shouldnevertheless redouble our efforts in improving the quantity and quality of Singapore arts. To this end, the NAC can play a pivotal role. It may be helpful at this juncture for NAC to restate what is its policy towards the evolution of Singapore arts in particular and Singapore's culture in general. Such a statement or guideline would help clear some of the lingering doubts and reservations of Singaporeans as to what kind of cultural orientation is needed towards the evolution of Singapore's culture and the arts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a subject of this nature would undoubtedly attract interesting intellectual polemics from different quarters, the purists and the pragmatists included. In my humble opinion, Singapore's evolving culture, its arts included, centres around a potpourri of the cultures derived from and influenced by the Eastern heritage of Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam, and the contemporary impact of the Western civilisation.

The word "potpourri" needs elaboration. The dictionary explains "potpourri" as a mixture of flowers or petals, herbs and spices, kept and used for scent or fragrance. Again, the word "mixture" is also worth noting. It means that the different components of the flowers and the herbs in the potpourri can still retain their own properties, but together they contribute to the fragrance they exude.

Using the same analogy, Singapore's evolving culture and arts must be a potpourri or a mixture of the various ethnic cultures and arts with a strong strand of Western cultural tapestry woven into it. Such a mixture would bring forth a cultural fragrance which is distinctly Singaporean.

We are not alone in this process of cultural evolution. If the Indonesian arts andculture is the totality of the songs and dances and the artifacts from the islands of Java, Sumatra, Bali, Sulawesi and now Irian Jaya, and that of the Malaysians include the ghazal from Johor, the ronggeng from Malacca, the inang from Negri Sembilan and the boria from Penang, or the dikir barat and the makyong from Kelantan and Trengganu, and the Fiesta Filipina is a potpourri of songs and dances from the islands of Luzon, Sumar and Mindanao, then Singapore's culture and arts must surely be the totality of the song and dances and the artifacts of our different ethnic groups.

If I may be permitted to surmise, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would say that the arts and culture of a country is to some extent the resultant of its common history and unique geography. Our common history has brought us to live together in this island of Singapore. Our historical past and our unique geography have moulded our cultural character to be that of an urban and not rural or agrarian in nature. But arising from this common history and geography, what is more fundamental is whether we as Singaporeans are willing to accept and appreciate the different ethnic arts and culture as our common heritage. In other words, our culture and arts is what we see outside and how we feel inside. The breadth of what we see and the depth of how we feel determine our common cultural emotions. I do understand that such emotions take time to bloom and mature. But I believe the seeds of these emotions have already been sown and the plants are growing. We are beginning to see flowers sprouting from these plants. Given time, I am confident that these flowers will exude the Singapore fragrance.

Sir, let me now turn to some specific clauses of this Bill. In regard to clause 5 of the Bill on the functions of the Council, would the Acting Minister elaborate on the kind of support and assistance given by the NAC towards the development of arts organisations? Similarly, in clause 6 on the powers of the Council, what would be the nature and the new scope of the variousadvisory committees? With specific reference to the extension of grants, contributions, loans for scholarships by the Council, may I suggest that the Council train people who will be bi-cultural in knowledge and expertise. In other words, we should have cultural officers who are not only anchored in one particular art, but equally conversant in the arts of a different culture. They will be our cultural bridge towards cross-cultural appreciation in our multi-ethnic society.

Lastly, I would like the NAC to establish a functional link between itself and the schools and junior colleges with a view to developing talents among our youths.

BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their enthusiastic support for the National Arts Council and for the appointment of Prof. Tommy Koh as the Chairman of this Council, and also for their very thought- ful and thought-provoking comments about what our general approach towards the development of the arts in Singapore should be.

A number of comments have been raised which I would try now to address in turn.

First, on the funding of the Arts Council. There is some approval for the increase in Government funding, but there is also concern that it may not be enough. Let me assure Members that the Government is committed to furthering the development of the arts in Singapore and will increase its funding progressively. The Council will get an operating grant of $6.5 million in the first year, and this will increase to $7.4 million in the second year to $8.4 million in the third year. The $6.5 million for the first year represents a 67% increase over recurrent expenditure on the arts last year. Beyond these three years, let us wait and see because it is possible to actually waste money on the arts, and we should not be just throwing money at the problem to solve it. There is a certain tao, as it were, as to how quickly the arts can develop in Singapore, and we should move with it rather than to speed it up faster than it can on itself progress. But where Government is needed to provide umbrella facilities, infrastructural facilities, that Government will do and, in fact, as Members are aware, we have now embarked on a project to develop a world class, top rate, performing arts centre in Singapore, and that will cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. The cost of operating that centre must come to millions of dollars every year. All that Government is undertaking to help finance, fully the capital cost of building the centre, and partially the cost of running it. The problem is not really money. The problem is whether we are able to develop the software so that when the centre is ready, not only will we have the people to perform on the various stages, we will also have the audiences to fill up the halls. Building the building, that is the easiest part. But creating the audience support, creating the traditions, developing excellence in performance, all that is infinitely more difficult to achieve. But we will try to do that, so that by the time the centre is ready in 1998/1999, we will have the companies and the groups and the audiences to really breathe life into it.

The Council is starting off with an inheritance of $11 million from the National Theatre Trust and the Singapore Cultural Foundation. It will also start off with a staff of over 100. We will take it from there and see what is required from year to year.

I am intrigued by Mr Heng Chiang Meng's proposal for double tax relief for those individuals who contribute to this Council, although I must say that as the Minister for Information and the Arts, I am rather more enthusiastic than I would have been as the Minister of State for Finance about this intriguing proposal. Nevertheless, my staff will study it very carefully and put up a case to the Finance Minister.

The approach that we take must balance, as Dr Ow Chin Hock has said, various competing considerations, one of which is striking a balance between top-down direction and bottom-up participation. We all know that throughout history, without a certain degree of top-down support the arts can never flourish. You need either kingsor princes, popes, bishops, cardinals, big entrepreneurs, to give funding, to become patrons. It is the case today. That if you leave it just to the market, the arts will never flourish. At the same time, without the market, it is entirely possible that we will be wasting a lot of money on activities which interest very few. So we must always find a good balance between a top-down approach and bottom-up participation. So when Mr Wan Hussin recommends that the Arts Council should come out with policy statements and give clear directions as to what it wants to do, I say, "Yes, I would discuss this with the Arts Council". But I would caution at the same time that the Arts Council should not be too quick to state its views. I think it should first conduct extensive social investigations, talk to people, find out what the ground is ripe for, what people feel they want, and then work with the currents, rather than try to impose from a theoretical academic viewpoint their view of the world on to the arts community and those who support artistic activities in Singapore.

Of course, Government should try and regulate in a way which facilitates participation by as wide a circle of the community as possible, and this we would do by managing the whole field more lightly and by reviewing our censorship rules. As you know, Prof. Tommy Koh is also chairing a Committee to review censorship regulations in Singapore. This is very timely. The last time we made a review was 10 years ago when Prof. Jayakumar headed the Committee. So 10 years after that, we have a new Committee and its recommendations should take us 10 years into the future. I do not think we should be overly cautious and take small steps. That will not do because it will create too much uncertainty. I have recommended to the Committee that they make an overall assessment and take a decisive step which will settle the field, as it were, for 10 more years into the future. And then 10 years from now we can have another Committee to take a fresh look. But we cannot be making small incremental steps. In the longer term, what we need really, as Mr Wan Hussin suggested, is to develop consciousness in the arts among young Singaporeans in the schools and junior colleges because that will provide the base upon which the arts can flourish over the long term. Right now, we are trying to light fires from the top here and there, but in the end it is whether the ground is ripe for comprehensive artistic development. The Education Ministry has done a lot and I am very heartened by the interest which parents are showing in the arts field. I have mentioned this before, I say it here again, that every year some 40,000 people take the music examinations under the ABRSM (Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music) without any encouragement by any public body or by the Government, but parents on their own deciding that - it may be peer pressure - they did not have it for themselves, so they wish it for their children. They feel that if their children do not have such education, somehow they are not completely whole and, therefore, they, on their own, have added the additional pressure on their children in order that they will grow up fuller.

It is the same too in other fields, like in Chinese calligraphy. In Japan and in Korea, even though they learn far fewer characters, they teach calligraphy from primary one. We do not, because that will be an excessive burden on our students. But, completely on their own, many parents have decided that calligraphy is a worthwhile pursuit and have prescribed it for their own children and, for this reason, calligraphy classes are booming all over in Singapore. So do ballet classes, dance classes and so on. So I am optimistic, because we have become a middle class society in one generation, and parents realise, on the whole, that when they were young they did not have the training, now they have the wealth, their appreciation of the arts is imperfect for lack of training when they were young, it is a deficiency which they wish to rectify in their children and with the support of the Education Ministry, I believethat the next generation will be much better off.

Therefore, when we attend concerts and other performances in Singapore today, we find that the majority of the audiences are young Singaporeans, and this is very heartening because when these young Singaporeans become working Singaporeans, become Yuppies, when they get into their 30s and 40s and 50s, they are the ones who will fill up the performing arts centre and who will provide the market for artistesto make a living in Singapore. So there is a positive current flowing in our society. Now that we have achieved a certain standard of material well-being, Singaporeans are realising that they must also give attention to the arts, and this in fact secures the future for artistic development in Singapore.

Our job and the job of the National Arts Council is to facilitate this movement, not to thwart it, and not to accelerate it faster than is possible, but to move with it, and to lead it along.

We must also strike a few other balances, and one is creating ethnic spread and keeping alive the old without the old preventing us from acquiring the new. The traditional arts are important because that is our link to the past. But the arts are a living thing and they are evolving all the time. If we are too trapped in traditional forms, then no progress can be made. And the fact that we are multi-cultural is in fact an advantage. I visited the NUS Music Centre recently, and I was told that a few months ago we sent a team to compete in a music composition contest in Taiwan. And initially the University thought: "Why do we go? We'll only lose face, because the others will be so much better than we are." But, lo and behold, we came up tops. So I asked them: How was that possible? They said: "Ah! The judges thought that we were particularly creative." And I suspect the reason is that being multi-cultural, we were able to cut across cultural norms and achieve mutual stimulation, and this assists us in the creative process. Whereas the Taiwanese who were caught in their owngreat traditions had greater difficulty achieving this breakthrough.

So, yes, we preserve the past but the past must not prevent us from moving into the future. Yes, we want ethnic spread; yes, we want quantity; yes, we want to be fair; but at the same time we should avoid the pitfalls of too much socialism in the arts. In the end, the progress will be uneven. Some will do better than others; and we are better off by backing winners rather than pulling down winners in order to be fair, and absolutely fair to everyone. If weare absolutely fair to everyone, then we will make no progress. And this is a fine balance the Arts Council has to achieve - feeding many, but for those which thrive, give full backing.

I am very inspired by Mr Wan Hussin's metaphor. It is about plants and flowers. And if I may continue the use of that metaphor. If the flowers are the products, then the job of MITA and the Arts Council is to be an assiduous gardener, tilling the ground, adding fertilizer, weeding, and so on. In the end, the actual creative process cannot be willed from above, it must come from the seeds themselves. So too, striking a balance between the local and the foreigner. As Dr Ow Chin Hock said, if we have too much protectionism, there will be no progress. But at the same time, there is an infant industry argument for the arts. I mean there are some seeds which have to be looked after in greenhouses before they can be exposed in the international environment. So I would say we do need a few greenhouses, and we do have a range of assistance schemes right now to assist fledgling arts organisations and fledgling arts activities in Singapore.

In the end, what is our objective? Our objective is to help create a Singaporean identity to help forge a Singaporean soul which would attach Singaporeans to Singapore, wherever they are. Are we achieving it? It is hard to say. Because if you ask artists and Singaporeans now to list what they feel to be Singaporean art, they are hard put to do so. It is very difficult to express in words what is Singaporeanculture or Singaporean art. Yes, we can describe what is Chinese art or Indian art or Malay art. But it is very difficult to describe what is Singaporean art other than by using metaphor and saying that it is fried rice, a mixture, or an amalgam of this and that. It is very difficult.

Now, this is interesting. I have had to open many exhibitions in the course of my duties. But what I have found is that a Singaporean characteristic is emerging, and emerging irresistibly. You see a painting, initially it looks Chinese. Then you exploreit more closely, you find, no, there is a variation, something is different about this, which sets it apart from the PRC pattern, the Taiwanese pattern. And this is inevitable because the artists grow up here in Singapore soil, they breathe in the air, they take in the spirit, and this must eventually be expressed in their artistic works. And over time, this process will continue, and with each passing year, with assistance from the Government and from private corporations and individuals, we will be able to help in the formation of this Singaporean character, realising at the same time that whatever character we develop must not make us so different as to be weird. And whatever we are, it must not just be attractive to Singaporeans alone, but must also be attractive to foreigners. And this is a great asset we have. That when foreigners come to Singapore, when they come through, visit our exhibitions, there is always something familiar about artistic expressions, something which links us to China, to India, to Indonesia, to Malaysia, to Japan, and to the West. And the more we are able to achieve this distinctiveness as Singaporeans without losing our international character, the more we will succeed and it will greatly enhance our long-term competitive position in the future.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [BG George Yong-Boon Yeo].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.