P: The problem here is that people are unduly afraid of discourse. What we really need here is not to avoid discourse but to allow it to happen in a safe space, and the Sub provides this space. I can’t think of any other better place in which this can happen. It’s tragic that a country with so much potential is being stifled internally by its own irrational fears. When I first came, I must admit I was ambivalent about censorship. I didn’t think much about it. I didn’t have a stand. But after what I’ve been through and witnessed personally, I’ve come to realise the evils of censorship. People lose the courage to speak up. There are very few people in the next generation who have the courage to serve as an intellectual vanguard for the community. Self-censorship is prevalent. And what troubles me most is that while people recognise this, they don’t seem to see any problem with it. What do we stand to lose anyway even if we have to shut up a little? So what if we are censoring ourselves? We can continue living our lives. But the thing is this: self-censorship is not just a socio-political phenomenon that concerns only the academic attention of the liberal fringe. It is deeply personal, even existential. Something at the core of our humanity is lost when we choose to silence ourselves. What does it mean to be human? What does it mean to have a voice?
W: It’s interesting that you speak of self-censorship as an existential issue, because that would necessarily mean that whatever that’s causing it cannot be entirely institutional. It runs much deeper than that. We cannot simply just put the blame on the government. In any case, I do think the NAC and the government as a whole are changing their tone. There is a marked difference in the way it chooses to address artists or the citizens in general. In the past, it used to be the artists kowtowing to the NAC. Now, it’s more about engagement and discussion. Sure, things are not perfect yet, but our institutions are clearly adjusting themselves. The problem now really lies with us. I know because I’ve spent time in places like Vietnam, Malaysia and so on. Just look at Vietnam: Communist government. Strict censorship regime. But the people are so much more energised, courageous and creative. But us? We are too affluent, complacent. Perhaps we are not really crippled by fear, but apathy. The only one crippled by fear is the government. The rest of us just don’t really care.
P: But that in a way can too be attributed to the institutional apparatus. We are not evolving because we took the easy route to progress. We were made to follow a highly planned trajectory, based on rigid controls, fixed routes and tested formula. We did not grow naturally as a people.
Y: For me, I think culture does play a big part in the way we approach the arts and discourse. I’m talking more about cultural baggage here. You can see this in the different ways the media from different languages approach the arts. In my view, the position of the English media in the past decade has remained unchanged: that contemporary art is something that can’t be understood, and thus there is a need to keep questioning, to keep justifying its practice. There is really close to nothing when it comes to developing a discourse. Instead, they focus more on spectacles and shows with a human focus. It’s mostly an editorial thing, of course, for we know that our journalists are much more intelligent than the words that get printed under their names. The Chinese papers, on the other hand, are much better when it comes to arts reportage. They can understand and talk about the issues and the reviews are very heartfelt. My personal theory is this: that the Chinese come from a historical tradition in which culture was really the cornerstone of society. Think about the Chinese literati of the 60s. They were the agents for social change. Because of this legacy, there is a natural inclination for the Chinese papers to defend culture. For the English papers, there may be some vestigial anxieties about this colonial language, the sense that we are using a language that is being transplanted form elsewhere… as if we don’t have a culture to call our own.
W: Yes, speaking of the media in Singapore, whatever happened to it? I don’t think the English media was always like that. We had people like Hannah Pandian, Sasi, Susie Wong who were writing really deep, relevant stuff. Who’s filling their shoes now that they’ve left? In talking about discourse, we cannot ignore the role of the press. The press is important because it is the only constant over the decades. It chronicles the scene from its early days and provides continuity and memory. It is the best space that can help sustain discourse.
O: We have to be cautious when examining the relationship between the media and the state though, because it never really is about one genuflecting to the other. Sometimes the state takes the cue from the media. The Josef Ng incident is a case in point. Its scandalisation by the media made it necessary for a policy decision to be made. This also means there is a vicious circular loop in place, an endless mirroring between the the media and the state in all facets, which is anathema to what a functional artistic discourse should be. The entire institutional climate needs a paradigm shift. I’m really not optimistic about the general direction of things even now. Everywhere there is still the same philistine attitudes and media anxieties over art, the same default mistrust of artists. It’s all tied to the larger authoritarian culture…
T: Sorry to interject but I have to point out the elephant in the room. Everyone is criticising the government for this and that, but all of you seem to have forgotten that you are also receiving support from them. So what relationship are we maintaining exactly?
P: No, I don’t think any of us has forgotten that. We recognise that and that’s why there is so much frustration. In a place where the entire private sector also sings the same tune as the state, there really is little space left for us to manoeuvre. But that said, I don’t think we should be taking an antagonistic stance any longer. As W mentioned, perhaps the NAC is really willing to engage and discuss, and it’s only right that we partake in the dialogue. In fact, if anything, we must be the ones initiating the dialogue.
T: This goes beyond it being about us versus the NAC. It’s also about us versus us. You say they are willing to engage and discuss, but they are not doing so with everyone. It still has an agenda and will work only with those who can help fulfil its agenda. This has created a divide within the scene and the worse thing is that we have internalised it. Look at theatre. It was one of the art forms that benefitted most from the professionalisation of the scene. Like with the Esplanade, the theatre people opposed it first, but now they are all working with it. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that. We should work with government, but we must also remember those who are falling through the cracks. Currently what I see is a bo chap attitude towards each other, or worse, antagonism. There are some artists thinking, why are all these political artists making life so difficult for all of us? Why must they do all this childish things like stripping naked and creating trouble? By that, you know I’m talking about performance art. I think there is also a class divide at work. The theatre people look at us and think we are just bad actors putting up bad performances.
O: Is there really a need to disparage theatre like that? I understand your concerns about the inequalities, but you speak as if we are fraternising with the enemy! Remember that it was theatre which first gave visibility to the fact of homosexuality. Without it, I don’t think we would even be discussing 337A today. Theatre was and is still the space to discharge social ideas. It’s unfortunate that we have developed a perception that theatre has gone all glossy and commercial because of its professionalisation, when it still is very much about the issues, about filling in the gaps of public discourse. We are all working towards the same aspirations. In fact, I find that there is too much theatre dabbling in political issues – bad theatre, in fact, for I don’t think theatre is actually the best medium for going into party politics.
W: Can we please don’t go into a petty argument pitting one art form against another?
O: Yes, I would gladly not want to myself. I think moping about the state of the arts is at times really just an excuse to cover up for the poor quality of the art here. Why do we have no great works of art here? Because the environment pampers us too much. And because our brightest people are doing law and medicine, instead of art. It can be as simple as that. Sometimes we just have to take an austere, uncompromising view: just focus on being great artist. With that, every other thing becomes immaterial. If you are good, you can thrive.
Images courtesy of The Substation.
