(Paper Cmd. 2 of 1997)
Sir, first, I would like to thank Members in this House for their support and encouragement over all these years for many of the activities undertaken by MITA. Finance Ministry has been very generous and our overall fundings have gone up, year by year, enabling us to provide more facilities and to help sponsor a greater range of activities. I must also thank them for their comments and criticisms which have been valuable to us, many of which I will pass on to the various departments and statutory boards involved. As time is not abundant, I will confine my response to the main points raised. But detailed suggestions which are interesting and useful will be attended to by the departments and statutory boards involved, and I will be very happy to elaborate on them either privately or in this House when Members table questions subsequently. 1.30 pm Let me first touch on the arts scene which has been raised by Mr Chew Heng Ching, Dr Yaacob and Mr Peh Chin Hua. Those of us who attend arts activities in Singapore would have sensed that there is a ferment taking place in Singapore, involving many Singaporeans, especially young Singaporeans. I feel very hopeful for the next century because, among younger Singaporeans, there have been sufficient exposure, training and facilities available to them. Year by year, our audiences are growing. They are still young but they are growing. And the market base for the arts in Singapore is broadening and deepening. So the signs are hopeful. By the time the Esplanade is ready in the year 2001, I think we will have enough local and foreign fare to keep it a very busy hub of the performing arts in our city state. The success of the Festival of Asian Performing Arts this year was very touching. This year's Youth Festival has been marvellous. I did not have time myself to attend any of the events. But one day before Cabinet, RAdm Teo Chee Hean came up to me and said that he had just officiated at the opening event, and he was so pleasantly surprised, so bowled over by the quality of the performances. And he suggested to me that TCS should give it more coverage, which TCS has done. The arts is an industry. Government's funding is important, but in the end there must be a market. There must be market forces at work. And in the end, it will merge into the multimedia industry, which will include not only Internet but also television, broadcasting, cable television and film. In all these fields, both technical talents and creative talents are needed and, most importantly, sophisticated audiences which we are fast becoming in Singapore. Government's principal responsibility is in ensuring good infrastructure. We are providing this. As you would have seen in the Budget book, more monies are put into performing spaces, into renovating older spaces, into building museums. There is also Dr Tony Tan's proposal to raise NAFA and LaSalle into tertiary arts institutions. All these represent concrete substantial support by the Government for the building up of a strong infrastructural base for the arts in Singapore. The other area which is very important is in arts education, and here we are sparing no efforts, because arts education provides the most important basis for the flourishing of the arts in Singapore. After that, MITA, NAC and the Government should take a very light handed approach. It is not for civil servants or for Ministers to say that this event is better than another event, because our views will naturally differ. It is impossible for us to agree on what is an appropriate dress code for TCS stars. So let the community at large, let human beings in their wisdom and over time arrive at norms which most of us are comfortable with. But it would be very dangerous if some officials, staying behind high desks in MITA, should dictate that this is the appropriate dress code; this is allowed; that is not allowed. I think our approach should be a light handed one. But for us, education is very important in building up the base. So NAFA and LaSalle will become very important institutions for Singaporeans in building up a high level of arts training. Mr Chew Heng Ching suggested that perhaps NAFA should concentrate on fine arts and LaSalle on the performing arts. I am a little reluctant to so prescribe them, because artists are free spirits. They do not like to be confined. However, NAFA and LaSalle have very different histories and traditions. One is more oriented towards South East Asia and the West. The other is more oriented towards East Asia and the Chinese. And these traditions will continue to sustain and energise them. Rather than try to dictate what they should become, I say give them a supportive environment, let their boards decide, and let their own histories and support bases decide what are their areas of specialisation. Dr Tony Tan has appointed Mr Tan Chin Nam to head a committee to study how the Government can better support these two key institutions and their report will be ready next year. I do not suggest that at this stage we should pre-empt what the recommendations of that report should be. In our schools, whether or not we should have a core curriculum in the arts is a question which we should continue to discuss and debate in this House, because in the end, the issue is what kind of human beings we want our children to become. As parents, we want them to be good in everything, in science, mathematics, history, heritage, the arts. We want them to play the piano, to do mental abacus, to dance, swim. There is nothing which parents do not wish for their children, and my fear is that if we insist that arts be taught as a core curriculum, our poor students will be under an impossible burden. Already their school bags are so heavy. I would rather provide general encouragement to the schools and to our school children and to create a social atmosphere which makes you feel incomplete if you have no knowledge of music or the arts. Then we would have succeeded. And there is no need for us to say, "You pass this examination or else you are not a cultivated man." I think that is the approach we are taking and that is the approach the Education Ministry has been taking. The Totalisator Board provides generous financing of up to $10,000 for each school. Edusave funds are available. Our arts education programme, which includes exposure, excursions, participation, now covers 40% of our school population. It was 180,000 last year. I think we can continue to improve on this in the years to come. I am sure no school will consider itself up to the mark if it does not spend some time on the development of the arts and arts consciousness among their students. The People's Association has also been wonderful in the way it supported the promotion of the arts in the housing estates. This year's Festival of Asian Performing Arts would not have been so successful without the support of the People's Association. And they are now encouraging the community centres to be also used as arts venues. Many of us are advisers to CCMCs. We have to rebuild and upgrade the community centres. And if we are able now to incorporate in the design phase some of the requirements of arts groups, like providing a bigger back stage and better lighting, I think every community centre in Singapore can become an arts venue. Some are already, but many are still sub-standard because the designs have not taken into account the needs of arts groups. I remember opening the renovated auditorium at Siglap CC which is airconditioned. It has become a very nice space for the performing arts. My own CC is used as a kind of a home for an alumni choir from Temasek Junior College, and so on. In the rebuilding of Marine Parade CC, we are going to incorporate into the building facilities for arts groups. In this way, as we gather knowledge, as advisers become more conscious of the needs of arts groups, I think all our CCs can become important arts venues, and in this way bring arts activities into the HDB heartlands. NTUC too has been performing a very important role, and I am now in the process of working out a master plan with the NTUC to see how they can better support the arts as part of our overall efforts. Money is always a problem in the arts, and arts groups are always crying out for more funding. Every year, MPs ask for endowment funds, for higher grants and I dutifully pass on all their requests to the Finance Minister. But I cannot, in conscience, say that the Finance Minister has not been very helpful to me. He has been. They are very sympathetic. The important thing for us is to remember that Government funding will never be enough. Government funding should never crowd out other forms of funding. In the end, it is what the consumers want. That is important. Corporations, schools and universities, what we as artists - and many MPs are artists and collectors, and attend arts events frequently - it is what we as a community want, little signals that we send through the market place that will in the end determine the shape and the form of the arts scene in Singapore. It is better for us to do it that way because that makes it more sustainable and, in the long term, we will have an arts scene that is more organic and more natural, and something more suited to our history, character and culture. Every year, whether it is for the Asian Performing Arts or for the Festival of Arts, I write letters to all the corporations in Singapore asking them to help, and this has been very helpful. We also have foundations which provide regular funding for training and for performances. We have the Totalisator Board and Singapore Pools. So we now have an array of organisations and individuals who are strong supporters of the arts. The circle is widening and what we in MITA and NAC should do is to work with the market forces. Yes, the arts throughout history in all countries had needed patrons, and patrons always have their favourites. But when there are many patrons, when there are many groups and many venues, then an internal market operates, and it is this internal market which we should facilitate for the development of the arts in Singapore. Government has also, in addition to providing many arts facilities and investments in educational institutions, provided arts housing for many of our budding groups. Today, over 40 of our arts groups in Singapore enjoy privileged access to highly subsidised arts housing. On endowment funds, I think they are better targetted at specific groups. If you form an endowment fund which is omnibus in character, the emotions, the passions are not there. If I am a classical music lover, then I would support the SSO. If I prefer Chinese music, I will support the SCO. But if my $100 or $1,000 were to go to a general arts fund and I do not know how it is going to be used, the emotional feedback is not there. But if I were to dedicate this money to Cantonese opera or to dance or whatever, and I see the performances, the satisfaction is much deeper. And it is this satisfaction that we should tap, which is why I think in the long term it is better if our endowment funds are targetted. Yes, they should receive IPC status, and NAC does operate special accounts for different arts groups so that they receive IPC status. Mr Seng Han Thong asked whether we will form an arts radio station. In fact, as MITA has announced earlier, we have been working on this and I am glad to announce here that the station will be launched some time at the end of this year. The idea is to create a community station which makes it very different from FM 92.
4. FM 92.4 is passive. It is for you to listen to. For many of us, it provides such good fare of classical music that our CD players are not being used in our cars. It is not interactive. What we want is an arts radio station which is a community station run by the NAC involving NAFA, LaSalle and the arts groups, and encouraging students in our schools, polytechnics and universities to help programme certain hours. For parts of the day, it can be a campus radio. If there is an arts festival or major exhibition going on, they can provide deeper additional information. And different groups of Singaporeans, who would otherwise not have an opportunity to be heard over radio, can gain access. This station will be launched this year. RCS will provide the technical facilities, but it will be run by the NAC and it will involve as many civic organisations as possible. And I hope it will generate more enthusiasm in the arts. The present plan is to have 70% music and story telling and 30% on infotainment. 1.45 pm Mr Peh Chin Hua asked whether the mass media could not provide more support for the arts. He has attended a number of exhibitions which the mass media have not given emphasis to. I really cannot complain about the coverage that the mass media have given to the arts. In fact, I think they have done a very good job - Straits Times, Section 2, Zaobao, Business Times, TV12, news, current affairs coverage. Over the last 10 years, there has been a lot of interest in the arts and, in our newspapers, many of our journalists themselves have a very keen interest in the arts. But, of course, however we cover, it will never be enough. Naturally, for every one who is happy and satisfied, there are many more who are unhappy and dissatisifed. But I see this as a positive trend. What it shows is that the arts scene has become so abundant that there is now competition for air time and competition for column spaces in our newspapers, a desire to win the approval of critics and reviewers. This reflects the growing sophistication in our arts review scene. It is important that our reviewers do not become too effusive because, if they are, they lose credibility. If every performance gets a standing ovation, then standing ovations mean nothing. But neither should we be like Vienna where the audiences are so snooty and stuck up that sometimes they boo when the soprano's voice breaks or when the musicians miss a few notes. I think we should be a gracious audience, neither too effusive nor too niggardly in our praises. Many of our reviewers are still not quite there yet, so they swing from one extreme to the other. But I notice that in the last few years a greater sophistication in the way arts events are being covered and written up about. I think that is good. Of course, we hope that over time, as our knowledge deepens, as more Singaporeans receive tertiary and post-graduate training, receive wider exposure all over the world, as we bring in more foreign talents into Singapore, then the entire scene, the intellectual support foundations of the arts, will also grow in tandem. Many Members of Parliament have raised issues concerning our TV stations yesterday afternoon. Mr Chew Heng Ching brought up a very good point about our advisory panels for general programming, for Chinese programmes, Malay programmes and Indian programmes, the importance of their rotating the memberships and widening their feedback channels so that the TV stations are very sensitive and attuned to what is happening. The suggestions are useful. Right now, it is only the PAC whose memberships are rotated. The others have not yet reached a point in their lives where we have seen fit to rotate them but, when they are, I will certainly take into account their views and ensure that there is sufficient ventilation of the members so that fresh views are always taken into account. They do in fact receive feedback from the People's Association and also from the Feedback Unit and the Service Improvement Unit. Of course, there are ratings. Ratings are very important for advertising revenues and in fact all our broadcasters keep a very sensitive feel of the ground, whether a programme receives good ratings, and whether it receives high hate ratings. These are things which they are very attuned to and very sensitive to, because it affects immediately how viewers react and their ratings which, in a corporatised situation, has a direct impact on their bottom line. This is where the market mechanism in fact provides the most profound feedback to all the broadcast stations as to how well they are doing. Of course, the market tends to pander to lower level instincts in any society. It is important that over and above that, MPs, parents, civic leaders also give their feedback so that TV stations will have a good balance between quantity and quality. There have been a number of comments, particularly by Mr Peh Chin Hua and the Lianhe Zaobao, about Dr Eddie Kuo's report on Channel 8, some negative criticisms that he represents an attempt to take away from the Chinese community in Singapore what is very important and precious to them. My own sense is that the criticisms are not well justified. I know Dr Eddie Kuo very well. I have read the report carefully. In fact, they feel a strong possession of Channel 8. Many of them are Chinese educated themselves and Chinese-speaking themselves. Their criticism is a more nuanced one. What they want is for Channel 8 to be a national station and not to be just an ethnic station. In America, if you subscribe to a TV cable package, you probably get one or two Chinese channels. But those are ghetto channels. You turn on to those channels, you do not feel that you are in America. You are cut off from the mainstream. You are just entering your own world. What ACCSS Committee has tried to put across is that Channel 8 should try to be more than just an ethnic channel. It should try to be a national channel. This does not mean that it should be like Channel 5. It will always be different from Channel 5 because our society, as seen through the eyes of the Chinese-educated and the Chinese-speaking, will always be different from the way it is seen by someone who is English-educated, or by a Malay or an Indian. But it is important that whichever perspective from which we look into our own society, that perspective gives us an overall picture of the multi-racial, multi-lingual society which is Singapore. I think this is what the ACCSS Report is setting out for us. How do we try to make Channel 8 a national station in the way that Zaobao is a national newspaper? One does not feel when one is reading the Zaobao that one is not living in multi-racial or multi-lingual Singapore. In the same way, when one tunes to Channel 8, one should have a sense that this is also Singapore, although seen from a slightly different perspective. All our four-language TV stations should try to do that. In other words, they should not over-exclusively cover their own communities. But that they should have a greater interest in their own communities is something which is natural. In fact, I was very touched by Mr Choo Wee Khiang's comment yesterday about the way our TV stations carried the Hong Kong handover. I was not in Singapore at that time. I was in Hong Kong. But because it was a very important event, when I came back, I took pains to get feedback from various people in different walks of life on their responses to the Hong Kong handover. For Chinese all over the world, it was a very emotional event, even a spiritual event. Not surprisingly, because the Opium War, the Treaty of Nanjing, began a train of events in China which eventually forced many of our forefathers to migrate to Southeast Asia and to Singapore. After migrating here, the emotions, the hatred, the sense of humiliation, continued to be nursed and passed down. Naturally, this is more strongly felt by Chinese Singaporeans and even more so by Chinese-educated Singaporeans. In fact, till today, I have not met a single adult Chinese Singaporean who did not stay up that night to watch the handover till 12.30 am. It must have been, in the history of broadcasting in Singapore, one of the most watched events ever on television on both Channel 5 and Channel 8. That Channel 5 coverage should be different from Channel 8 coverage is also very natural. If they were the same, something is wrong. They have had many good background programmes in the run up to 30th June, both on Channel 5 and Channel 8, but not on Channel 12, because there the audiences are mainly Malay and Tamil and we would not expect our Malay and Indian compatriots to have the same degree of interest in the handover of Hong Kong back to China. But all take a Singaporean viewpoint, and it is very important that we take a Singaporean viewpoint. We just cannot take the feed from Hong Kong. In fact, when I was in Hong Kong watching television, I took care to switch channels, now BBC, now CNN, Chinese television, Hong Kong television, in order to get a sense of how the perspective changed from different angles. Someone I met told me that he met Dan Rather from CBS at a hotel lobby in Hong Kong and Rather complained that there was nothing to report about. "There is nothing to report about," he said, because he was looking for other things. He was not looking at the main event. Indeed, if you watch CNN and, to some extent, BBC, the event was presented as something to be sad about, to be worried about. Whereas if you tuned on to Chinese television, it was something to be celebrated. We should neither take the American position nor the Chinese position. We should take our own position, reflecting our own history, reflecting where our forefathers came from, reflecting our own political situation in Southeast Asia. On their own, the TV stations decided - Channels 5 and 8 - to carry it live, which I think was a correct decision. That TV12 did not carry it live was also a correct decision, in the same way as our neighbouring countries did not carry it live on their television stations. But that Channels 5 and 8 should carry it, I think, reflected the standpoints of many Singaporeans and it was the right thing to do. This event is also important because it highlights a key difficulty in the promotion of heritage in Singapore. Dr Yaacob asked whether we could ever present Maria Hertogh in a way which is unemotional and unsensational, which is acceptable to all races. I very much doubt it. Because life is not like that. Life is not vanilla flavoured or monochromatic. Life is full of colour, full of smells, full of flavours. And it should be like that. It is in the combination that the meal is to be enjoyed. But, of course, the flavours and the sounds should not be so clashing that it destroys the meal. This is what we should try to do when we deal with sensitive issues concerning heritage in Singapore. We have presented Maria Hertogh before. Usually, if it is very sensitive, the producers will expose it to various focus groups to ensure that all sharp edges are carefully deburred before it is put out. I remember for the Maria Hertogh programme, we also passed it through MFA and my Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Yatiman Yusof, to make sure that the final product that comes out is acceptable, which made it a little bland. But in our situation, perhaps it could not be helped. Many MPs asked if we could not, without losing our focus on the Speak Mandarin Campaign in Singapore, allow for a little bit more dialect programming, particularly to serve an older generation of Singaporeans who may not know Mandarin. I am sympathetic to that point of view because I think the battle of Mandarin over dialect is largely won, and so we can relax a little bit at the fringes without it causing harm or confusion. At this point in time, I say let us not have it on television because that is where our young are programmed for the future and let us not confuse them. But on radio we can probably be more flexible. On cable television where bandwidth is not a problem, we can probably be more flexible. So our Chinese cable TV channel now carries up to 50% dialect programming. We increased it from 30% in the past. Chinese music videos, from one in 10, we have increased it to three in 10. For video on demand, we have increased it to 50%. Dialect news on RCS in the evenings, I agree with Members that they are done rather perfunctorily and not very satisfactorily. I think we should improve on it. The audience for the 8.00 o'clock dialect news is not small. The average audience, for the 8.00 o'clock dialect news, is between 100,000 and 130,000, depending on the time in the week. But an average rating of 120,000 is not at all small. So I think we should give it more attention to ensure that older Singaporeans are better looked after. I am sympathetic to RCS carrying it also in the morning. Whether it is in the early morning or late morning, we can decide later. But I think we should do it. If there are not enough dialect speakers, then I will take up the suggestion put by both Mr Peh Chin Hua and Mr Seng Han Thong that we get the clans to help. And in extremis, I will also put Mr Seng Han Thong on. 2.00 pm Dr Ho Tat Kin gave a very eloquent criticism of cartoon programmes on TCS yesterday. As a parent myself, with young children who watch a lot of cartoons, I must say I am quite moved by his views. Programmes like Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers or Street Sharks are really nothing but extended commercials for toys. But we as parents, through television programmes, are subject to pressures from our children to buy them these toys. Sir, I would say for children programming, as much nutrition, as many vitamins as possible. But if it is overly-nutrified, overly-vitaminised, these programmes will lose their entertainment value, and children may turn to other things. And I do not think that we should really cut down the number of cartoon programmes because that is really for parents to decide. Eventually, I am sure, on cable TV, we will have 24-hour cartoon channels. So I say, let the parents decide, but we should try and improve the quality of our programmes, and when it is just crass commercialism, put a limit on it. But we should not be overly concerned that every programme must be full of education. Many of us grew up on Woody Woodpecker, Roadrunner or Tom and Jerry, which were quite violent if you think about them, but I think we have grown up still quite sturdy and upright. I do not think they can all do that much harm to children, even though they appear quite violent and strange at times.