ABSTRACT
When George Yeo opened the fourth Singapore International Film Festival in March 1991 he made it clear that the arts in Singapore were dependent upon the economic success of Singapore. ‘For the arts to flourish’, he said, ‘there must be a critical mass of creative activities and a long-term economic basis for their sustenance’ (The Straits Times, 23 March 1991). In an unpublished confidential report by the Committee on Performing Arts (November 1988), appointed by the Advisory Council on Culture and Arts to ‘recommend strategies to integrate performing arts as a permanent and visible manifestation of Singapore’s cultural lifestyle’, the brief was to ‘assess the progress made in promoting the growth and appreciation of the performing arts’, and ‘to identify factors and propose measures that will create a conducive environment for sustained growth in the performing arts’. This technocratic language, often used to describe media and performance in Singapore, reached new heights in this report with statements like:
With a relatively small population, strategising for a potentially vibrant performing arts environment in Singapore is no different from the strategies successfully applied to Singapore’s high tech economic activities. In many respects, performing arts in Singapore, apart from being an enrichment experience for the people, will form an integral part of Singapore lifestyle no different from its greenness and cleanliness which together will affirm its position as a centre of excellence and an attractive place in which to invest.
(Report 1988:58)